Flagged Revisions installed. Unapproved pages display a Red unchecked notice under the title. Trolls attack here by creating and archiving pages with offensive content. To verify an archived page, check the original URL. Questions about administration? Contact User talk:Abd. Limited privacy on this site, see CFC:Limited privacy


From CFC
Jump to: navigation, search

Or discussion of debatable points?[edit]

[original edit by Deweirdifier at [1], comment italicized, responding to specific points:

Your site seams interesting. I would recommend to reduce your hopes of CF, even if it works, its no guarantee that we can use it.

Aren't you making an assumption here? That I think cold fusion will have short-term practical use? While it's possible, the Japanese gave up after spending a rather large sum trying to find a way to scale up the effect and make it more reliable. My interest is in the science, how can my "hopes" fail except by turning away and not investigating? There is a CF phenomenon, at least one and probably many more, as you will see below. What's been demonstrated by experiment is the conversion of deuterium to helium without radiation, that's established by correlation of heat and helium in several different types of CF cells, confirmed by about twelve research groups. From that to practical power generation is not easy at all. A cold fusion hot water heater that would produce hot water today, not tomorrow, maybe again the next day, or even 29 days a month, isn't terribly practical. And then there is this obstacle: suppose a way is found to make the Arata effect work for long enough to be practically interesting. Suppose the heat scales, so if 7 grams of nanoparticle palladium produces what Arata has reported. My official napkin calculator, based on shallow information, tells me that with a mere $100,000 worth of palladkum, one could make a home cold fusion hot water heater. The palladium would not be used up, you could consider it money in the bank. However, the cost of the guards to keep your money safe would be more than to pay for normal electric water heating.... And the cost of the money would likewise exceed the cost for a normal hot water heater.
However, there are people working on other materials. I just saw an experimental setup that is using a metal oxide with a small amount of palladium plating on it, for gas-loading. Apparently, an oxide layer is important to at least some CF results (see Iwamura's work with transmutation, and an oxide layer will form on palladium in electrolytic experiments, plus a zirconium oxide matrix is used to hold palladium in some other gas-loading work. There is suspicion that the variability in P-F electrolytic cell results is due to a difficult-to-control variable like the exact surface composition of a cathode after electrolysis.)

You want to discuss certain points. Ok, what objections do you have about this? You know others that could be interested (i suppose you are well connected here). (its just theory!!!!!)

Theoretical model protocell that should be realizable in the lab

I'll look at it and comment in situ.

It kind of has similar experimental difficulties with CF, at the beginning at least, results are close to just random (well in theory at least).

CF was found by researchers, Pons and Fleischmann, who were attempting to confirm the theory that the approximations of quantum mechanics were adequate to predict nuclear behavior in the condensed matter state. This had never been carefully investigated, it was an assumption that fusion was impossible. They believed that they would fail, thus confirming existing theory, though a confirmation of impossibility is never conclusive unless the condition to be determined impossible is carefully and completely specified. "Fusion" is a result, not a process, it can be accomplished, potentially, by more than one process. Start with deuterium and end with helium, plus energy from the mass deficit, you have "fusion," no matter what you did in the middle.
It was assumed that if there was fusion, it would be the simplest fusion imaginable with the material, deuterium. But that fusion is a well-known reaction with well-known behavior, and even if a different form of catalysis were found, from the known and accepted cold fusion that is muon-catalyzed, the reaction products would be expected to be the same. They weren't. Tritium was missing, neutrons were missing, He-3 was missing, proton and gamma radiation were missing. It was concluded from that, that this could not be fusion. What would have been far more solid would have been a conclusion that it was not "d-d fusion," the known reaction. It was, we can now say, with high certainty, exactly what Pons and Fleischmann called it in their original paper, an "unknown nuclear reaction." "Proving" that an unknown nuclear reaction is not happening because the signs of a known one are missing is, once we know to state the problem that way, obviously off the point.
From the beginning, the question was whether or not the excess heat was real, and if it was real, was it from a nuclear reaction? Or from some other unknown process -- which should have been a matter of high interest, because this was, if not fusion, a "battery" more efficient and with higher stored energy density than any other battery known. Most critical comment focused, however, on theory, i.e., '"fusion" was impossible -- and omitted was a specification of why it was impossible for any fusion reaction to occur, for the theory only related to d-d fusion or other two-body fusion reactions, the kind where the barrier and tunneling rates were easily calculable -- and therefore the excess heat must be artifact. "Q.E.D." Not. The work to actually identify the source of the excess heat was missing. Workers who persisted -- it was difficult -- and who saw excess heat, in spite of all care and control, were then labeled as "cold fusioneers" deluded by "dreams of limitless energy" and their results dismissed, but the skeptics never did the work to demonstrate artifact, as had been done previously with N-rays and polywater. It was armchair pseudo-skepicism. Using theory to dismiss experiment, which is the very opposite of the scientific method.

Whant to make some protocell, in palladium chloride or whatever? :D Or maybe evolve palladium chloride or something protocells able to do some cold fusion? :P

Vyosotskii, an experienced Russian researcher, reports various transmutation effects from bacterial cultures. The work appears solid, using highly sensitive and specific Mossbauer spectroscopy, but nobody has even attempted to confirm it. Biological transmutation appears ridiculous at first, except that if CF is possible, it becomes not so inconceivable that the "confinement" that is certainly necessary could be managed by a protein. Vyosotskii has a large body of work, published in Russia and also in the American Chemical Society Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebooks (2008, 2010, I think). The experiment that sticks in my head is a culture of w:Deinococcus Radiodurans which appears to have converted Mn-55 to Fe-57, in the presence of deuterium. These are experimental results crying out for confirmation or disconfirmation.
Apparently there is something else that CF requires, cojones. For years, the normal labor available for replication work, grad students, was cut off because the work would be (and was) rejected by doctoral committees. Scientists who would otherwise have investigated cold fusion were afraid to trash their careers by being associated with it. And I saw this on Wikipedia, where an editor, who was a scientist, told me that he need to preserve his anonymity because his career would be toast if he let it be known that he was even discussing cold fusion. And he was a skeptic! It's quite a story of how orthodoxy successfully -- for a time -- repressed research. The barrier actually fell sometime around 2004, with the U.S. DoE review, then, the results of which can been seen to be quite far from how the pseudo-skeptics describe cold fusion, even though that review was shallow and contained blatant errors. I showed, on Wikipedia, an error in the DoE report that was obvious, once one looked at the source they claimed to be describing, and yet that error remained quoted in the article, without any warning as to deviation from the cited source, as if it were the most definitive thing said in reliable source on the topic (heat/helium! -- the most important evidence for fusion), for well over a year after I first pointed it out. It remained in spite of extensive discussion in the short time I worked on the article recently until being banned again, and was only removed a while later. Replaced with nothing, even though, as I mentioned, this is widely reported in secondary sources in mainstream journals.... Wikipedia is way behind current research, far more than reliable source guidelines would indicate. This is not some new result, heat/helium. It was covered by Huizenga in 1994, very specifically considered important. And Huizenga was the main skeptical opponent of cold fusion! And, of course, it is examined in detail in the recent NW article, and that is a peer-reviewed secondary source review (explicitly labeled as such and featured in the journal, first page), supposedly golden as reliable source.
I actually went to the reliable source noticeboard, shortly before being topic-banned again, and got confirmation of this. Useless waste of time. If every editor who knows both CF and the sources, and who knows Wikipedia guidelines and procedures, is banned, the guidelines and prior ArbComm decisions (which I was attempting to and did implement, in the very writing that got me banned by a clueless admin, by request at meta for the removal from the blacklist of lenr-canr.org was successful) are useless. They have no teeth if the only people who understand the topic and the implications and who is watching the article are excluded from comment.
I could appeal the ban and would be, quite likely, successful. But Wikipedia assumes that experts will care enough to go through the wringer. I don't know any who are so motivated. I'm not. I'll write here, which is quite enough distraction for me! Even if I were not topic-banned there, I would prefer it.
Now, if biological transmutation is possible, it could become possible to "culture" cold fusion cells, literally. Deinococcus Radiodurans is remarkable for its extreme radiation endurance, which might allow the bacterium to function even if generating low-energy alpha radiation, internally, for example. That would kill most cells from the ionizing disruption if a reaction took place in the cell.
But Vyosotskii has other results involving decontamination, with other organisms, which may amount to the acceleration of nuclear decay. That is an effect that is being independently investigated, and there was a mainstream journal report last year of possible nickel-catalyzed decay acceleration, as I recall. It's unconfirmed and the statistical significance of the result has been challenged. (I've seen a number of CF reports where conclusions were drawn from thin evidence. They might be true, they might even be probably true, but the world is vast and isolated reports that are based on nothing more than chance variation are quite possible. The heat/helium ratio was estimated in the original report at 1/750,000 possibility of chance correlation. Subsequent confirmation by other groups has clearly raised the ante beyond this, allowing Storms to estimate the heat/helium ratio at 25 +/-5 MeV/He-4, compared with 23.8 MeV being predicted for any form of fusion that starts with deuterium and ends with helium plus energy. This is why Storms was allowed to state in the abstract for his recent article in w:Naturwissenschaften, "Status of cold fusion (2010)", that the evidence shows a form of deuterium fusion with no "harmful radiation" as the main reaction (with other apparent reactions being far lower in frequency, negligible overall). --Abd 18:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
My interest is the science, and my business is selling materials and, soon, kits, for research into cold fusion. The particular design I'm working on is simply designed to demonstrate neutron radiation, which is a very minor side-effect of cold fusion, but neutron radiation is easy to detect because it's highly penetrating, and rare in nature. Because I can detect neutrons in a small area, i.e., associated with the cathode, and if I can reproduce the results of the U.S. Navy SPAWAR group, following a quite specific protocol, I'll see neutron radiation that is perhaps three orders of magnitude higher than cosmic ray background. This radiation from CF cells -- which is highly variable according to exact experimental conditions, it's seen with a gold cathode substrate and not with a silver one, even though both are plated with palladium -- was missed in experiments using electronic detectors, because the latter have a far larger effective detection volume, and thus background radiation is detected at much higher rates. It took the use of SSNTDs to overcome this problem.
The neutrons are not an indicator of the main reaction, the rates are far, far too low. They are, however, an indication of a nuclear process taking place in the cell, and, therefore, a disconfirmation of the theory that nuclear reactions are impossible under those conditions. As Hoffman wrote in 1994, in his dialogue between an "old metallurgist" who was obviously a stand-in for Hoffman, and the Young Scientist, who matches the brash, confident and often young supporters of the status quo that I've seen many times, "Perhaps you don't like your paradigms challenged."

At a minimum, i'm doing good science-fiction material.--Deweirdifier 15:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Science fiction can be educational, as long as it does not pretend to be established science. I cut my teeth on science fiction. Good science fiction stories would take established science and use it, tossing in some speculation, i.e., "what if"? The capacity to think of "what if" is highly useful for those who set out to expand the frontiers of science.

Now that i think about it, we could try to use normal bacteria in the presence of some exotic materials(rich in ... palladium?) under special conditions( low T? poor energy environment) and hope they will invent cold fusion catalysts or something. Could we try something similar in high T superconductors? Bacteria in environment containing large quantities of ytrium or stuff like that, and under electric stress or something. Maybe some other experiments in the same vein? I'm dispersing my self again, what do you think about the protocell theory.--Deweirdifier 16:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Dispersing yourself"? What did you mean to say? Spreading yourself too thin?
Setting up conditions for bacteria to evolve in some direction is indeed a possible experimental approach, that could be what Vyosotskii has done. Until there is much more work with what he's found, we can't necessarily know if (1) he found only artifact, even though the method looks good, (2) these bacteria can naturally -- already -- accomplish what he saw, or (3) he set up conditions for them to evolve to do the trick.
The latter approach will not work if the leap from the existing DNA/RNA patterns is too great. Classical genetic engineering through experimental selection could be ramped up so that millions of experiments are performed. But, look, my interest is in small-scale, simple, cheap experiments that can be performed by anyone, within easy reach, say, of a high school student wanting to do a science fair project. That's the level of education I'm working on. The field of cold fusion is looking at the coming passing of the original generation of researchers, who were mostly senior professors and the like in 1989-1990, with the means and resources to be able to ignore the massive rejection and continue. "Die-hards" they were called. I.e., they were resistant to massive social rejection. But, eventually, they do, like everyone else, die, and there was concern, five years ago, that all the experience CF researchers would die, and with them much of their expertise would be lost. It is still more or less an art to get a P-F cell to produce measurable excess heat, and calorimetry itself is a difficult art, and published papers do not document everything.
My own kits will be thoroughly documented, fabricated according to published plans, with materials available from stated sources. Much of what I do, in the end, will depend on results from my customers, those who agree to share their results. My own results will be published, one way or another, on the internet and/or in journals (I'm told that acceptance of work like this by a journal is highly likely, if it's well-done and well-described and properly written), and any customer who shares results will see that appear in publication as well. This is how we overwhelm entrenched pseudo-skepticism, with widely-confirmed fact. The rest is hot air.
For now, though, the status of cold fusion, scientifically, is indeed described in the Naturwissenschaften review. I helped edit that, it represents, to me, that my work is being successful. Besides, I've gotten to meet Storms, I've been invited to meet or have already met other experts in the field, I've been supported financially by a Wikipedia editor who was less than impressed by the repression there, and, most important of all, I'm having fun, returning to my roots, doing real science. I wouldn't trade this for any amount of smug satisfaction that I see from certain pseudoskeptics who smoke their pipe of belief in their own theories, and sit in a fantasy of disconnection from reality, all the while imagining that their thinking is "scientific," when it, in fact, rejects the very foundations of science. "Science" means "knowledge," but implies knowledge that is rooted in experimental confirmation/disconfirmation. The pseudoskeptics support "knowledge" as in the "knowledge" of the Church faction that was behind the Inquisition, it supports "status quo knowledge" against any disruptive change. There is a lovely video at
I'm a skeptic.
Piece of propaganda, to be sure. But brilliantly done. See also Drasin's Zen and the Art of Debunkery. Drasin has compiled, there, a list of pseudo-skeptical techniques, that are, in fact, common. Note that pseudo-skepticism generally supports what I call MPOV, Majority Point of View. My opinion is that MPOV is usually correct, but pseudo-skepticism is a non-scientific practice which works to prevent corrections to MPOV. The majority is, to put it briefly, ususally right, more or less, but when it rejects minority experience ("experiment"), it loses its legitimacy. Drosnin briefly covers, on this page, cold fusion, mixing it with "free energy" advocacy (there is some overlap, but not much, I've not met a cold fusion researcher who thinks that energy is extractable from Zero Point Energy, for example. But the same principles apply). Pseudo-skepticism creates noise that distracts from real skepticism, and this can bury real science in piles of pseudoscience. There are, in my opinion, very good reasons to think that, for example, w:Steorn is selling an artifact, not a real energy-producing process. Repeating a hundred times, "This is impossible," does nothing to point out that Steorn has not been able to produce any independent replication of their work, and what they have published is so poorly documented (they sell the documentation! not cheap!) that it's next to useless. Compare this to cold fusion with hundreds of independent confirming research groups around the world and a thousand papers published in peer-reviewed journals, plus another two thousand or so conference papers.... Pseudo-skeptics still lump them all together. And use the same kinds of arguments. --Abd 18:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo-skepticism, yea, it sucks, i agree with that. I'm not in too CF, real or not, unless i can boil water with it. I'm leaving, so respond concisely what you have to respond in my article talk page.--Deweirdifier 20:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Eventually, -- probably -- someone will boil water with it, that is, with excess heat. Some experiments already boil water, but the excess heat is not the only energy causing the boiling. Whether you will ever see what I call the "cold fusion samovar," which brews and keeps tea hot with cold fusion, is unclear. (A famous skeptic said that he'd be satisfied if someone could brew him a cup of tea with cold fusion. Then, in the CBS Sixty Minutes report on cold fusion last year, he asked for a second cup after he finishes the first. Moving target...., and it's been that way for years.) There are approaches being worked on that, if perfected -- which, absent a clear theory of what's happening could take many years of trial-and-error -- might be able to brew tea with something affordable. How do you turn this thing on and off? Load and deload? Engineering in the absence of theory is very, very difficult. And there is no satisfactory theory. Not yet. It could take many years of research, even with increased funding, to develop one (or to vet one of the existing theories which Storms calls "plausible."). For me, this is absolutely not about energy production. But .... it could lead there, and until the evidence for the reality of CF is recognized, the kind of funding it would take to move this to the next stage is difficult to obtain. It's happening anyway, so it's really just a matter of time. If I'm successful, I might know in two months, I might be able to sell you a device to make a few neutrons at home, if you like. But neutrons aren't terribly useful in these quantities. If it were more, a terrorist might be interested. The U.S. Navy delayed releasing the neutron results for maybe a year until they were sure it didn't have that kind of "application." You can do "interesting things" with neutrons. --Abd 21:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, your page, linked above, was deleted, as normal. I made my comment on the attached Talk page, but what I was commenting on was deleted.... as you requested. --Abd 21:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:PCano[edit]

I've responded to your concerns there. Regards, TeleComNasSprVen 05:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of honest resources[edit]

You may be interested in a recent addition to Wikiversity:What is Wikiversity?/Draft: "As long as works are honest they are generally within Wikiversity's scope. You can help to keep resources and other participants honest by asking questions, seeking clarification, and requesting more details. Generally when a resource does appear to misrepresent itself, the solution is to discuss it and when possible cite sources." Was inspired by what you wrote recently which I think is a good idea. -- darklama  14:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Our goal should be to build educational resources, using what material we can bring or can use from what others bring. Neutrality policy requires that we balance problematic material, and we should only delete it when this brings us closer to out goals, i.e., content is not readily recoverable for educational purpose, and is seriously distracting or otherwise harmful. Even then sometimes we can still keep a possible scholar, by userfying, encouraging, etc. You may, if you look over my history, find places where I bent over backwards to try to encourage a very-much-fringe "scholar" to become clear and to organize his work within our general consensus, and if I failed, well, we don't always succeed, and if I never failed, I could be sure that I'm not trying hard enough to help. I'd rather make it clear that we welcome and assist newcomers, who will often not understand our policies and guidelines and unwritten customs. If they are greeting with immediate deletion and a block when they, quite understandably, take it badly, we will lose them and whatever work they would have eventually created. In a recent case, it appears that the scholar may be somewhat of a topic expert, but that doesn't really matter.
My Favorite Topic, besides wiki process!, is Cold fusion, which is highly controversial, real-world, a field where there is a huge gap between popular opinion among scientists in general and what is actually being published, for many years, in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. I believe that we can create a deep resource here that is highly informative and educational, sources are abundant, but it's a topic where some people get almost insane talking about it, with one camp believing that the very possibility of cold fusion being real is way-out-whacko-fringe, and another camp believing that the scientific evidence is clear, and the other camp is ignorant and pseudo-skeptical. So ... what can we do?
The Wikipedia article is impossible, experts have been banned, quite a number of them, and the article is currently managed by editors who have sometimes been banned or ArbComm reprimanded (on the pseudo-skeptical side). Here, though, on Wikiversity, we have a very different understanding of neutrality, original research is allowed, and we don't need to decide what is fringe and what is not, what is notable or not, as long as we present what's in the sources accurately and neutrally, and we can stray from neutrality under certain conditiosn. The top-level resource should be rigorously neutral, and if it's not, it should be fixed! At a lower level can be pages that are "biased," but those pages should be attributed opinion or research. What has happened on Wikipedia is that the constraints of an encyclopedia require making decisions that require consensus among editors with very different points of view and very different levels of knowledge of the sources.
Currently, there are massive discussions taking place, almost entirely between Moulton and I, over cold fusion. While this sometimes gets hot, it's also extremely (for me!) educational, as I'm forced to defend positions against claims that I know, from long study of the field, to be preposterous, which is tricky. Lots of experts would have no patience for it at all, and I've been doing this on-line for more than twenty years (in other fields; to give an example, I was one of the few Muslim contributors to soc.religion.islam who could handle a post claiming that the Prophet was a child molester without coming unglued. I'd just say, well, let's look at the evidence.... And, in fact, I became personal friends with certain Christian apologists, who had been "counter-attacking" based on intemperate Muslim attacks on Christianity. And, of course, I got the usual death threats from fundamentalists, this was before 9/11....)
These massive discussions are, as they are, a mess, not very accessible. But they will be refactored, by me and/or by others. Whatever Moulton thinks on this is whatever many skeptics will think. Even if that thinking couldn't be sustained by anyone who knows the experimental evidence in detail. Held beliefs can persist long beyond their natural time because of this phenomenon, but good consensus process can cut through this. We should develop a School of Mediation, and use it! This is not about me being "right," it is about deep exploration of the bases for disagreement, which is the only way, ultimately, to resolve serious disputes.
A related conclusion that should be policy. Subpages may be "owned" by an author, where individual responsibility is important. What would we think about a "student paper" presented as part of some seminar, that is then changed by someone else without the new authorship being clear, suppressing the original student's views and work? There are ways to handle this that are creative and build content instead of allowing or fostering conflict over content. Say a student writes a research paper for a seminar. Someone else thinks it's "wrong." So they also write a paper. They may use the original content with attribution, just as any student can quote another source with attribution, it's not plagiarism if it's accurately quoted and attributed. Or they may write an independent report. And then, on the page linking to these subpages, these are presented equally. Each subpage has its attached Talk page with comment from others. Etc.
Another creative possibility: the two work on a joint paper! They present common material above, with any remaining differences below, perhaps summarized above. They allow and encourage others to join their mini-seminar.
Suppose we end up with a huge pile of these, on some topic: Okay, at that point, we'd need to introduce some kind of grading system. Let's not go there yet, we should be so lucky as to be seeing such high participation.
I do think we should start to prepare for high participation, I see it as inevitable, given the position of Wikiversity and where Wikipedia is going. There will be, I forsee, an interplay between Wikipedia and Wikiversity. Much conflict that exists on Wikipedia could be avoided by encouraging minority point of view editors to build resources here, that can then be cited in discussions on Wikipedia, that can become tight and that can incoporate high degrees of consensus in what's on a top level. These resources can also be linked from articles. This will be opposed by the previously-dominant Majority POV faction on Wikipedia, it's predictable, but that faction always loses when there is broad enough consideration. MPOV and NPOV are in intrinsic conflict, when there is real controversy. NPOV is neither fringe nor MPOV. The sign of NPOV is consensus, and Jimbo understood that and wrote on it, early on, largely ignored in practice by many current active editors on Wikipedia. And they sometimes come here and try to impose Wikipedia standards on us. We should welcome their participation, but hold firm against deletionist practices.
Thanks again. Your support is appreciated. Sorry if this is too long! --Abd 20:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Aqib Aze[edit]

User:Abd from Aqib Aze

above copied from an IP edit to my user page

Welcome, Aqib. Please put notes for me at the bottom of this page, this is better than on my User page. Please use the Add Topic tab and describe your note in the entry box for Subject/Headline. Or you can just write in this section. --Abd 00:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


Abd, can you please try something for me? It's mathematically simple. When a new user (WV new, not "new to you" new) posts something somewhere other than on your own talk page, please keep it short, and don't make it long until after they've engaged with you. Simple system (I know you like systems):

  • First reply: up to 2 sentences.
  • Second reply: up to 4 sentences.
  • Third reply: Up to 8 sentences.
  • Etc.

Give the other guy/gal a chance to get a word in edgewise, eh?

Oh, and please always reply to my questions/comments using at most the same amount of sentences that I did. Way less so than I did when you reply to this (taciturn, taciturn, taciturn). --SB_Johnny talk 21:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've never understood this "word in edgewise" as it applies to written communication. Makes complete sense face-to-face. There is a problem in wiki threaded text. Which is why threaded text is a problem! I've used collapse boxes, so that one can read a brief summary and need only read the full thing if one is interested. People still complain. My conclusion: people complain. --Abd 14:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Privace Police check up on Aqib Aze, Stop it.[edit]

You are ruining Aqib Aze.Do not discovering Aqib Aze. Stop it! Seriouslly do not fakeness do with Aqib. Stop and I mean it, This user while stay for years to provide you.Reply message. comment added by, 21:26, 11 January 2011. --Abd 14:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice this when it was put here. Sorry. I am trying to keep Aqib Aze, etc., pages, from being deleted, so that you can work on them or play with them. If I make a mistake, please let me know what it is, as clearly as you can. Thanks. --Abd 14:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

File is not included[edit]

I`m not accounted to mess with Files on Commons. Impossible, Fi`red

F`ir F`man

I don`t see how it`s really cold out from Aqib specials, From the Aaqib Sochal posted as above, 21:37, 11 January 2011

So you are causing all this cold weather! I knew it had to be somebody. I hope you will stop soon, I'd really like it to be warmer, it's snowing again today. --Abd 14:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It may be snowing in Massachusetts, but at least it's not a blizzard of words. —Montana Mouse 14:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Which is worse depends on how warm or cold the words are, and whether or not one must attend to them or may leave them in place. Snow is beautiful to look at, but digging out is not so much fun. --Abd 14:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Fleischmann-Pons reaction[edit]

You have email. --KBlott 22:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I notice that Cd has been observed as a by-product of the Fleishmann-Pons reaction. Is this Cd112? Is Ag107</sub> also observed? --13:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
My view is that we need to understand the main event before putting a lot of time into the sideshows. Cadmium is sometimes found. Storms (2007) shows silver (fairly commonly) and cadmium (more rarely). Where mass number is reported, in his table on "isotope enrichment," Ag-107 and Cd-110 are shown as enhanced, with Ag-109 reduced.
From heat/helium, the main reaction produces helium and practically nothing else. How the 23.8 MeV/He-4 is released without major radiation is a huge puzzle, but that's consistent with the observed heat and helium measurements.
Theories are sometimes advanced that require multiple reactions in sequence. Unless all but one reaction completes rapidly, these are unlikely. However, once there is deuterium fusion to helium, by whatever mechanism, it's quite likely that "leakage" of energy at a low level (through rare high-energy products) will take place, thus it becomes relatively easy to explain transmutations. --Abd 15:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it is pretty hard to prove that you understand the main even without being able to explain at least one of the side shows. Otherwise a proposed mechanism is unlikely to survive peer review. I actually should be doing other stuff with my time but this problem has been keeping me awake at night. --KBlott 02:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
You and probably thousands. Some of the side shows may indeed be clues as to the main show, but more likely they are just the natural consequences of a slightly leaky fusion reaction; the current thinking is that it's some kind of cluster fusion. There are proposed mechanisms "surviving peer review," but none of them are really complete enough to, say, predict reaction rate under specific conditions that are known to exist. Takahashi's TSC is interesting because the condensate, itself, would be neutrally charged and possibly able to approach nuclei in the lattice, causing direct transmutation sometimes, or a stray deuteron could come across it with another effect. My sense is that we need to know, much better, how Bose-Einstein condensates behave. Have you read Takahashi and Kim? Other approaches look at the idea that a nanoparticle of palladium loaded with deuterium may act as a quantum entity, with some prediction of optimal size being floated. Storms is working on the effect of oxide layers with gas-loading (and, again, are you familiar with Iwamura's transmutation work?). --Abd 03:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the literature on the Fleishmann-Pons reaction. I had never taken the phenomenon seriously until you introduced the problem to me. Now I am spending waaay too much time on it, considering old problems in a new light. I think you are probably right about neutral deuterium atoms condensing onto Palladium nucleons. Many nucleons exhibit alpha decay and neutron decay, so why not deuteron decay? --KBlott 02:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Probationary custodianship[edit]

Welcome to probationary custodianship, Abd. Please feel free to discuss any ideas and possible custodian actions. Do you have any particular goals during the next month in terms of content development, admin, or other WV development? I note that you're listed as a current student of How to be a Wikimedia sysop, a resource that hasn't had much development lately. If you feel so inclined, I think you could make some valuable contributions to this project - understanding what's there and improving it at least some way, I think, as well as practicing local maintenance etc. would constitute "graduating" from that project in my view. There is also How to be a Wikimedia sysop/Wikiversity. I have thought of making some sort of template checklist for people to check off when they've read through and considered each of the official and proposed policies, but for now here they are: Template:Official policies Template:Proposed policies I particularly appreciate your forthright and open sharing - but also also encourage you to take heed of advice from others, however adversial or ill-intentioned it may initially seem to be, at least personally, I try to find at least some grains of truth which can lead to positive change in my behaviour. Sometimes it's more productive to focus on self-improvement than changing others. Sincerely, James. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course. You are a model and an inspiration. I will attend closely to criticism of my actions as a custodian, and anyone who is not satisfied with my responses, I assume would be able to ask you to review the discussion. Thanks for your confidence in me.
I have learned to learn from those who appear to oppose me or my work, because my friends may be too polite to tell me what I should be hearing. It may not always seem like I'm listening, because I may also have deep knowledge that I'm trying to express, in some cases, but I'll try to work on making sure that I reflect what I've heard.
In the end, it was clearly best that the action enabling my bit was done independently. Good work. --Abd 03:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for rolling the sleeves up and getting stuck into maintenance work. From what I've seen, its mostly being really good stuff, including friendly, helpful communication with new users. The main area I would suggest for improvement is to avoid taking "pot shots" e.g., [2]. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
That was not a "pot shot," but I understand how it could seem to be so. It was a real suggestion. I am, however, sometimes aware of multiple meanings. If you thought it was a pot shot, it was a mistake on my part. Thanks. --Abd 12:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Abd. FYI, I am not following the minutae of Abd, Ottava and SB_Johnny CR discussions but am following along generally. I'd much prefer to be reading and helping with main space contributions - and I suspect most others would too - but once the "somebody is wrong on the internet" neural pathways get triggered ... well ... the drama pattern becomes, for a time, intractable. I'm not sure that I can help much - but I'm open to discussing possibilities. Personally, I feel very comfortable working with you and with you being in an admin role. But I am concerned that you've become so involved in Ottava Rima-related matters. Sometimes trying to put out a fire gives it the fuel it needs to thrive. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've become involved in Ottava-related matters because Ottava has been on a "boot Abd" kick ever since I became, again, a probationary custodian, from day one. I wasn't pursuing him, at all. Just because of me, Ottava attempted to rewrite custodianship policy to seriously impact mentored custodianship, which is very serious, the risk of that change remains. The whole point of mentored custodianship is to allow easy access to the tools while remaining safe. There is some attention there, to mentorship policy, needed, for sure, but the solution is not more bureaucracy and allowing a few disgruntled users to torpedo any mentorship. I'll write more about the solution later. Really, it boils down to providing more available supervision. Taking a controversial action, like the block of Ottava, I showed what should actually be required, my opinion: granting of a right of reversal by other custodians without it being considered wheel-warring. The danger is of a period when nobody is watching except a single probationary custodian, but hopefully that's a short time. And, really, this is a problem with any custodian. I think we should encourage many more users to help out, but at the same time, we should tighten up on guidelines for custodians, making policy and procedure clearer. I do have in mind working on that sysop course, but ... I've been a tad busy! Thanks, in any case.
I don't agree on one thing you imply. I don't think ignoring the situation with Ottava would improve it. Indeed, the situation was visible back when I blocked him for incivility the first time, you ended up, after careful review, noting that he had, indeed, been uncivil, so you warned him, and he promptly filed Wikiversity:Community Review/Jtneill. You basically ignored it. Did the situation get better? Effectively, as to serious attention, his incivility was ignored for months then. Did it get better? --Abd 07:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with some of what Jtneill wrote. Unfortunately the drama pattern has been ongoing for about 6 years due to the someone is wrong mentality. Drama does seem to quiet down some for a time when it is ignored, but I can also understand why you feel you cannot ignore your own review. From what I have seen, I get the impression you are willing to accept whatever the community's decision is. Do you think you could ignore your own review, if you stated you are willing to accept whatever decision the community makes within your review? That seems like it could be a way to unburden yourself of any concerns over your review. -- darklama  15:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Abd - I think I've tidied up / archived relevant discussion about your Abd 2 probationary custodianship, although I've left the Community Review open. I appreciate that you didn't hold back and showed the community clearly how you would approach custodianship. Obviously your approach concerned sufficient people to cause enough protest to lead to the Community Review and being desysopped. I'm not sure if you would have done anything differently if you'd had your time again? From my end, I was keen to see you given a fair shot and to give the community a chance to respond accordingly. At least, perhaps, that was achieved. It was a challenge to keep track of the volume of related edits on WV let alone elsewhere (which I didn't follow). I was a little concerned initially when you didn't indicate any particular goals for the probationary custodianship - perhaps I should have pressed that point, because I found it somewhat difficult to offer feedback without a clear sense of the goal(s). Nevertheless, thanks for your efforts and contributions. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

My goals for probationary custodianship were simple. I was offered a mop, and my goal was to use it. I did so, my logs will show that. I have structural goals for Wikiversity, but custodianship was a hindrance to that, if anything. However, an unexpected purpose was served. I now see the problems at Wikiversity much more clearly. What I saw was not quite what I expected, though, in the end, it's not surprising. A quick summary:
On-line communities, without adequate protective structure, shoot the messenger. I've seen that since the mid-1980s, on the w:W.E.L.L., where I was a conference moderator. Human communities in general do this, act to expel anyone who makes them uncomfortable, it takes a sophisticated society to confine this tendency, which has as its most negative effect the development of a rigidity that cannot adapt. Athens condemned Socrates to death, but he would have died anyway. Athens died.
Thanks for your support, it's appreciated. I will construct a review of what occurred, and in that review may be made plain a way forward.
I was quite confident that Wikiversity could handle the coming challenges. That may have been naive. What might be considered the reflective core is missing, it's a shell. Busy on the outside, to a degree, though only a tiny fraction of what I'd expect with better structure. Empty on the inside. --Abd 13:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Participation in validation for Wikipedia/OS research[edit]

Hi, thank you very much for contributing to different parts of the research! I'm finishing now adding my notes to the SubHypothesis pending and then will read yours carefully. If you dont' mind I would like to add you as the first member of the Distributed Dissertation Committee :) --Esenabre 15:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks. --Abd 15:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you also for fixing the misspelling in the template and the pages linking it. Salut! --Esenabre 17:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection mistake?[edit]

  • (Protection log) . . Abd (discuss | contribs | block) protected "Category:Welcome templates" [edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite) (Highly visible template: as a precaution, this has enough use, I'd say)

The above is not a template, and categories cannot be moved. Did you make a mistake there? -- darklama  15:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously. Apparently, pushed the wrong tab and didn't notice. Weird. I've been doing a lot of stuff, and, well, the more you do, while you do get better at stuff, the more errors can be made, too. Feel free to reverse any admin decision of mine that is an apparent mistake. Or if you simply disagree, and you think harm is being done immediately, then, of course, you may also act and we will work it out through discussion. I'll check on this and fix it if you haven't already. --Abd 16:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


I have notified both of the two admin who are watching the page that you are trying to disrupt and you will most likely be blocked when they log in. Statements like this are unacceptable, especially when you posted claims about me that lacked evidence and amounted to no actual violation. If you think SB Johnny deserves to be an admin, then make an argument. You have failed to do anything as such. And no evidence? There were multiple links, so outright making false statements is not appropriate conduct for Wikiversity.

You will be removed from this community following SB Johnny. You are demonstrating the behavior that justifies this necessary outcome. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

ROTFL --Abd 06:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"Train Wreck"[edit]

I had "train wreck" in mind as being uncivil and perhaps to a similar extent "defective". You hadn't at the time explained what you mean by "train wreck". With "defective" you at least tried to make an effort to explain why you think Ottava Rima's attempt to copy over material was defective. However I think both still fell short when it comes to assuming good faith, because you were critical of Ottava Rima's good faith attempt to move discussion to Community Review as suggested, didn't acknowledge and potentially ignored his good faith attempt, and you stated your own unwillingness to fix it yourself which suggests you were not interested in collaboration or in encouraging a helpful resolution to a perceived problem. Which begs the question why mention a problem at all if you are not willing to contribute to a solution? -- darklama  22:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm willing to contribute to a solution, and normally would do the additional moves, but given that the page was begun in a "defective" way, with false statements about deadlines, with !votes canvassed, etc. -- as I'm showing in what I'm writing at the moment -- the whole thing, if it's going to be done, should start over, as a proper process. And I can't -- and shouldn't -- do that. --part of Abd 22:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Please avoid referring to what people wrote as "false statements" too. I think several people need to stop doing that actually. You should assume that people believe their statements to be true and respond accordingly in a constructive way because labeling people's words as "false statements" solves nothing and encourages hostility. I think one possible solution may be to explain in the discussion what you believe is the intent behind the 7 day period and why you believe a deadline shouldn't be imposed. -- darklama  23:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Darklama, I have about forty years of experience in consensus process. "False statements" can be made by any one, I'm sure I make them. It has nothing to do with belief. "Lies" are another. If a statement is made that something is a lie, it is claiming that the person knowingly made a false statement. I will explain, on the page, of course, but I'm pointing out, in summary form, the problems with the process. Suppose my comment is true. Does this not create a process problem? That's the point. Proving that the statements are false is another matter, don't you think? I'm saying that the statements are false based on our policy, and on our practice, and on universal wiki practice. It's solid, or I'd make a less strong statement. But that isn't uncivil, at all. You might, as well, compare this to the common complaint from Ottava that I'm "making things up." False statements can be made out of ignorance, "making things up" is more active.
Note: I'm not excusing any errors of mine on the basis of "he did it too," or "he started it." I'm just pointing out the situation. I'm not noticing any effort on your part to encourage Ottava to tone it down, to back off and work on the project, to cooperate with others, etc. Instead you complain that I didn't dot an i. Doesn't mean I don't hear you, and how you perceive things is important to me. I will, however, tell you what I think. --Abd 00:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I think Ottava Rima shouldn't be referring to things as made up either. Most of my effort to encourage Ottava to tone it down has been on IRC thus far. Same for JWS and Moulton actually. I hope you don't consider your forty years of experience in consensus processes as meaning there is no reason to continue to learn more about consensus processes. I think the goal should be to find common ground and not to prove anyone's opinions as wrong. I think an approach aimed at proving someone wrong is like having a religious argument over whose religion is the right one and will not be constructive most of the time. -- darklama  01:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
One of the problems here has been the use of IRC for what should really be on-wiki. However, to your point, of course. Except about religion, isn't my religion the only right one?
Seriously, I've been trying to cooperate with Ottava and have never opposed his ideas just because they are his ideas. But it seems something got stuck somewhere.
If you'd been watching WV instead of IRC, some of this stuff might not have come down like it did!
(I have technical problems with using IRC, and I vastly prefer operating openly, with very little done privately. WYSIWIG.) --Abd 01:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
What belongs on-wiki is debatable. I do tell people to bring discussion on-wiki when I think it has any on-wiki relevance. I would have this discussion on IRC if I could though because it could fill pages and maybe volumes of books and I think only the outcome has any on-wiki relevance. I prefer real-time discussions over wait and watch tag that on-wiki discussions provide when it is an option. MediaWiki's discussion system is too rigid and disorganized for my tastes as well. I can watch both the wiki and IRC channel at the same time using half the screen for each. I did actually see your notice for Custodians. I did nothing because I wasn't sure what if anything should be done and I prefer not to be the one to make such calls. -- darklama  02:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure, it's debatable, but I will point out that how a conclusion is arrived at, what was considered, can be of great importance later. We have an unfortunate tendency to have vast, sprawling discussions that never get refactored into consensus conclusions. We need to fix that, ultimately, it's part of what doesn't work about wikis. IRC is not better, necessarily, it's just hotter, and that real-time participation is required makes it highly intrusive. It's largely why I can't use it.
Now, you saw the notice for custodians, but wasn't sure what should be done. That would have been fine, you could have said, "I'm watching," and you could have invited suggestions, warned, etc. Did you see my notice of intention to block or my warning to Ottava that I intended to block? --Abd 02:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
No consensual conclusions seem to ever get reached off-wiki either. I would want a summary of what was considered and what conclusions were arrived at too for anything that could be of great importance now or later. IRC isn't necessarily hotter, I may only prefer it because I've been communicating using IRC for 16 years and I haven't found anything else yet that I prefer more for internet based communications. Very few people actually seem to communicate via means other than on-wiki discussion. I prefer to use IRC to help new contributors that prefer being helped in real-time. I would also prefer to see IRC and other communication forums used for heated discussions that distract from Wikiversity's scope with a summary of what was considered and what conclusions were drawn and brought back on-wiki once discussion has manage to calm down and become more productive.
I noticed your intent to block notice. I'm not as sure as to when I may have first noticed your warning to Ottava, I can't recall if I first saw your warning to Ottava before or after you blocked Ottava. -- darklama  13:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. The problem isn't off-wiki discussion, per se. Indeed, my own approach would set up multiple off-wiki discussion forums. They would each be self-controlled. They would have different internal standards. Some would be private, and the problem of off-wiki coordination causing warped participation in discussions would be dealt with through on-wiki safeguards against premature close of discussions; indeed, we do something that is a Bad Idea. We have "voting" before deliberation is complete. No democratic deliberative body does that, not voting on the main motion. Indeed, it takes, under Roberts Rules, a supermajority just to close debate, to decide that it's time to vote. Nobody complains -- at least not seriously -- about private conversations among the members of a deliberative body. Those private conversations are structurally essential, in fact. If every discussion takes place on the floor of the assembly, the assembly would become choked with business. Someone who wants to introduce a possibly controversial measure may want to find someone to second it first. Wikis frequently don't filter discussions for viability, except a few places. On Wikipedia, user Requests for comment must be certified by two users as having attempted to resolve the dispute. That's something we could use here, in fact. It might have eliminated a good chunk of our Community Reviews that were no-hope wastes of time. But anyone could set up, for a time at least, a draft Community Review in their user space. And while it's in their user space, they get to control it -- unless the community decides it's disruptive there, even. --Abd 15:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Pointing out that evidence provided on a page as to a prior discussion elsewhere (copying those comments in itself could be a problem) has been selectively copied, eliminating about three-fourths of the original discussion, and including the actual proposal that people were !voting on, is well within my rights. Ottava noted that the original was long, and that maybe he'd missed something. Indeed! Three fourths?
I was not suggesting you cannot point out problems or disagree with someone. People can disagree and point out problems, and even dislike someone, and still assume good faith. I believe you are still not assuming good faith with the above, the implication from the above is that Ottava Rima intentionally omitted things when copying discussions. Anyone can copy discussions, and I doubt there can be a conflict of interest or recusal failure by completing the copying of discussion started by someone else and also because it does not require a decision to be made. -- darklama  23:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't believe, any more, in Ottava's good faith. Something has so badly damaged his judgment; he is angry and he's retaliating at those he perceives as enemies, and he's been doing this for months (and, in fact, he's done it for a long time, elsewhere). I don't see the move as an attempt to satisfy community process, he is still claiming that stewards are going to save the day, and he's still claiming fixed time for decision, etc. It was just wikilawyering, not an attempt to resolve a dispute, etc. --part of Abd 22:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
People can be angry and still believe they are helping the project. He may believe his claims are true. He may believe that removal of the tools from you and SB_Johnny is in the best interest of the community. I think there is no need to assume bad faith, if he is motivated by retaliation against people he feels have wronged him, discussion can help to clear the air and perhaps prevent future problems, while halting discussion may only help to nurture suspicion and distrust, even in other people. -- darklama  23:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Ottava may indeed believe that Wikiversity is being damaged by all the current bureaucrats and by me. However, I'll ask you what "bad faith" means. I'd say that Ottava has an intention to harm others. It is normal that people justify such intentions to themselves, and believe in their own good intentions. In the end, it doesn't matter what I think about Ottava's intentions, and I've been through this with ArbComm on WP. Users are blocked or sanctioned based on their behavior and the protecting of the wiki, not based on their "intentions." It may be necessary to block someone who is insane; their intentions may be noble as imaginable, but if their delusions cause them to do damage, if discussion does not resolve the problem, it's necessary to go ahead for the protection of the wiki. The key, to me, is the apparent intention to harm, to exclude and reject. It's been discussed to death. Ottava was given great leeway to discuss, and has simply used the freedom to become more and more disruptive, without any apparent necessity other than revenge. Revenge is "bad faith," almost by definition.
Remember, Darklama, Ottava was my mentor. There were no problems between us, we had positive history on Wikipedia, where I'd supported him. Then I saw him calling SBJ a "liar," here, with no necessity, the matter had nothing to do with Wikiversity. He was a custodian, required to uphold the highest standards (as am I). As this was gratuitous incivility, I warned him. He basically said, "who are you to warn me?" Since I'd warned him, and he'd disregarded the warning, I blocked him. For two hours, knowing full well that I'd not get another chance. I referred the matter to the community immediately. From that point on, Ottava's position was that I was the worst thing to hit Wikiversity, ever, so to speak. Sure. I'd "betrayed" him. But I didn't betray him, I, in fact, gave him good advice that he didn't want to hear. It's an old problem, DL. I considered that my duty was to Wikiversity, not to him. He was only exercising the trust that the community had place in him, and I then started to see how he was, fairly often, betraying that trust. And that eventually led to his desysopping. And so he has even more reason to retaliate. --Abd 00:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
"Bad faith" is basically to treat someone as if their only reason for being here is to do harm and to disrupt. -- darklama  01:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Please, Darklama, watch this situation closely. Please look at what I've been writing on this; I acted in the belief that there was -- and is -- an emergency, that WV is being damaged, and badly, by this activity, and I requested neutral custodian oversight. Nobody -- still -- responded to that and said, "Don't worry, I'm watching." I announced my intention to block and invited any custodian to ask me to stop, and even permitted that I could be blocked if the custodian feared that I'd do some serious damage before getting the message to stop. No response. That means, to me, that nobody was watching. --part of Abd 22:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I imagine you genuinely felt an emergency existed. However people seem to think there wasn't anything that required immediate action and that instead of bringing a halt to whatever damage you felt was being done you did the opposite. This suggests that the definition of an emergency may need to be clarified to better reflect what the community considers an emergency or the community may not believe an emergency is enough reason to act when there is an appearance of a conflicts of interest. Apologizing may not help, but you could try. -- darklama  23:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure, "people" think that. However, to make an actual judgment, they'd have to look at the evidence, in total, and the context. If there is time for a reflective community discussion, "emergency" isn't an emergency. Basically, situations can arise that, if allowed to continue for even a few hours, can do long-lasting damage, and explaining all that would be too much here. "Executives" -- officers with privileges -- must be trusted to exercise discretion, and part of that is declaring emergency. Were I a police officer, I would not ordinary be able to arrest, say, my brother-in-law. But if it were necessary to prevent immediate harm, if waiting for another officer to arrive could result in injury, I could do it. This wasn't that dramatic, but it only needs to be dramatic enough to warrant taking a remediable action. What I actually wanted was for some neutral custodian to take responsibility, perhaps to reduce the block or lift it under conditions. Sorry, I can't apologize for what I still believe was correct, even outstandingly proper. If I see someone who was harmed, I'll apologize.
However, I certainly can't, without some kind of confirmation that what I did was correct, do it again. I fully respect consensus. My view is that wiki process works when people act according to their own best understanding, and only when there is disagreement does more complex discussion need to take place. I think that many on Wikiversity, with less experience with Wikipedia, don't understand this.
If you look back at my actions, you will see a complete lack of wheel-warring, and you will see, I think, only two examples of truly controversial actions: both were blocks of Ottava. The first was, in fact, routine and should not have been controversial in itself, but the community didn't go on to examine it. I think that the fact that I'd blocked my own mentor -- knowing full well that he could unblock himself, or just wait the two hours -- was so shocking that people didn't look at the reason. The second block was under a declaration of emergency.
In my view, the block could be correct, even, but if the declaration of emergency was improper, serious sanction, at least a reprimand, could still be in order. That's because recusal policy is very important. I know it's important! But who was harmed? I know the background of many, many recusal failures, and the damage done has been tremendous, on Wikipedia; and the problem is that it can take years to get review, and what I've found is that nobody goes back to undo the damage. Eventually, an abusive sysop might lose the bit. It can take phemomenally complex and wasteful process to do it. I basically sacrificed my Wikipedia career to successfully demonstrate that a certain sysop was out of control. Whistleblowers are not popular. But because I brought this immediately to the community, it could not escape notice. Given who was blocked, it would not have escaped notice in any case, but I was making the point about proper process whenever a sysop determines that wiki welfare requires setting aside normal recusal requirements.
Presumably people think Wikiversity was harmed by Ottava Rima's block. -- darklama  01:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
How? How long was he blocked? What would he have done with that time? Now compare that with all the time spent dealing with the processes he's started.... Do you want me to list the Community Reviews? all of which were wastes of time? I haven't technically started one Community Review, but I was engaged in writing one when SBJ took the material and filed, being a bit impatient. In spite of not being complete, it accomplished what was necessary. There is a vast difference here. --Abd 01:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
This is what would be proper process regarding my action. Emergency desysop requests should be addressed to my mentor or to SBJ. Both 'crats have my permission to lift the bit if they believe it better for the community, either temporarily or permanently, and they are not required to explain. My mentor has the full right to instruct me to refrain from this or that sort of action. Short of removal, if someone is concerned about risk to the wiki, or improper action, they should file a Custodian feedback report. That's prescribed in policy. It has not been done. If that does not resolve the issue, then a Community Review is next.
My opinion is that Community Reviews should not be site-noticed until they are approved through some process, similar to a Wikipedia user RfC, or we get the multiple train wrecks of many prior reviews. I also think we need better CR process; we have a process now where someone can throw up a Review, making some proposal, and people pile in and support it, perhaps, before there is any opportunity for contrary evidence to appear. This is a formula for ill-considered decisions, and a "momentum" is created that can warp subsequent participation. At the very least, one custodian, other than the filer, should agree that the matter is worthy of review, based on the prior process, and place it in the site notice. Not simply because it exists. --Abd 00:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The request for oversight from me at "Request custodian action" sat for days, as I recall. Nothing. Occasionally a custodian would take some small action or make some small comment. Nobody was willing to take responsibility, in spite of some very obvious and serious edits that I was seeing, truly damaging stuff. So I did take responsibility. SBJ, unblocking, did not actually find that the block itself was incorrect, even pointed out on his Talk page that he thought the absence of Ottava would be an improvement, but, to give my summary, it would look bad that I did it. Indeed it did. And WV will continue to look bad, very bad, as long as this disruption is allowed to continue, and nobody is willing to take responsibility and act, if nobody is willing to "look bad" for a short time.
Discussion is great, but also dangerous, when not confined within clear process. Canvassing is going on, and it's obvious. Appearance of consensus can appear because of participation bias. On Wikipedia, there would already have been blocks issued, not that I find WP readiness to block thrilling.
Ottava will do what he can to bring down Wikiversity, my opinion, because Wikiversity rejected his control. That's why I set the block as a year, even though I knew that it would very likely be reduced, but my hope was that the admin reducing would set conditions. SBJ, to my surprise, simply lifted it. But he might not be able to reset it without raising eyebrows quite the same as me. But I'd permitted that in my block. ("Any custodian.")
Darklama, I wish you'd comment on and appreciate the care with which I did this. I am not attempting to dominate Wikiversity, just to lead the way, for those who might see the opportunity, through the dangerous thicket that's afflicted us for quite some time. I think we are almost through it. When Ottava wasn't acting up, things were going very smoothly. Nobody was attacking him, nobody was preventing him from doing whatever work he wanted to do. --Abd 22:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not know if it was possible or not to be more careful, though you may have made a mistake in assuming that the community accepts the recusal proposal. I can understand and appreciate your desire to lead the way out of this when you think the opportunity arises, that is what I do too when I believe an opportunity to do so presents itself. In fact that is what I'm trying to do with this feedback. I believe if I want to get through to people I am forced to constantly refine my approach because nothing seems to work. -- darklama  23:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe that the community has accepted the recusal proposal. But it does, in fact, simply document the already-existing process and general understandings. The proposal steers between the Scylla and Charybdis of allowing abuse and preventing proper discretion. I believe that the policy should be approved.
Thank you for expressing your concerns, and if you have specific guidance to give me, ongoing, it is my duty to listen carefully to your comments and suggestions. --Abd 00:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Desysop and topic ban process for Abd[edit]

Wikiversity:Community Review/Abd was filed. It's traditional to notify users of such things, even if you think they already know. So, hey, this is a wiki, Fix It! I hereby notify myself that I have been accused of Great Wrongs and Terrible Tyranny, the most serious crime being, to tell the truth, lese majeste, I was rude to the King, daring to warn him, can you believe it?

No, not Jimbo, the other one, recently deposed, but he has Loyalists still struggling for his honor and payback. Jimbo and I get along fine when we've met. He listens respectfully, which is more than I can say for some. --Abd 20:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


(reply to this): One of the symptoms of Wikipedia Disease is the use of a special jargon that includes "troll", "train wreck" and "disruption" when the behavior of abusive sysops is discussed and questioned. It is not healthy for Wikiversity that those who are infected by Wikipedia Disease try to prevent discussion of the actions of abusive Wikimedia Functionaries. You might imagine that you have the right to block Wikiversity community members from editing rather than let them speak and you might like to delete Wikiversity content rather than improve it, but Custodians do not have those rights. Abd, you are disrupting Wikiversity every time you abuse your Custodial tools by pretending that the banhammer culture of Wikipedia is appropriate within this community of collaborating learners. For the sake of Wikiversity and its mission, please take a vow to only use your Custodial tools for dealing with obvious vandalism. Your instincts about who to block and what to delete are perverted by your experience with the banhammer culture of Wikipedia and your instincts are not suited to the Wikiversity community. Wikiversity is a place for peaceful learning projects, not a place for blocking Wikiversity community members and deleting their contributions. "major, serious disruption, which is *worse* than vandalism" <-- ALL of the serious disruption of Wikiversity has been caused by people infected with Wikipedia Disease, by those people who have claimed the right to censor Wikiversity discussions, delete Wikiversity content and block Wikiversity community members from editing, impose bans on participation of Wikiversity community members from participation the Wikiversity chat channel and perform emergency desysops when there is no emergency. Unless this insanity stops, the Wikiversity community will never recover from the sickness it has been subjected to since 2008. Even if you do not care about the many Wikiversity community members who have been driven away by Wikipedia Disease and even if you do not care if your disruptive behavior wastes the time of Wikiversity participants and drives away honest Wikiversity participants I think you would care about your own personal reputation. As far as I can tell, you really believe that you have the right to continue to disrupt this community with your misguided use of sysop tools. I have no reason to believe that you are capable of understanding how disruptive your behavior is. Every day that you continue your antics and continue to claim the right to block people and delete content to your heart's content you perpetuate the sickening process of driving away honest Wikiversity participants and attracting more sociopaths who want their chance to play with a toy banhammer. Please renounce further use of of your tools for anything but fixing obvious vandalism. Custodians are expected to set an example by building learning resources and participating in learning projects not by disrupting this community. "threatening other users" <-- If you feel that you must fight a war with Ottava then please do that at Wikipedia Review or some place that will not disrupt this community. Even if you think Ottava is wrong, he has the right to express his views. If you are correct then nothing Ottava says can harm you or Wikiversity. Wikiversity has been vastly disrupted by the insanity of deletion, blocks and censorship and more use of those sickening tools cannot return this community to the peaceful domain of collaborating learners that existed in its first two years. I am so tired of wasting my time trying to get you to stop disrupting this community. Just please stop. Yes, there are others who are far worse than you. Notice that I do not waste as much time trying to get them to grow up. I'm taking the chance that you can control yourself even when other wielders of the banhammer cannot. --JWSchmidt 22:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, JWS. Can you point to examples of disruption through blocking and deletion of content, of "misguided use of sysop tools," so that I can see what you are talking about?
The diff you give is where I, on your Talk page, referred to Ottava's threats of block. Did you see those? I documented them at [3], it's in the middle, there is a bulleted list of references, easy to spot.
Have you asked Ottava to stop? Remember, that proposal by Ottava was an attempt to ban me from WV space, entirely, based on behavior that certainly isn't worse than yours. I hope it's better! I haven't seen it your attempts to get him to tone it down. Please point it out.
JWS, if I were going to block you, I'd have done it long ago. I chose, instead, to try to advise you, lot of good that did.... You need not fear. I don't block people for disagreeing with me, or even with the whole community. It has to get much, much worse. Ottava was threatening people they would be blocked if they disgreed with him. That's going quite too far. --Abd 00:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


"block you for violation of warnings" <-- Abd, please put down your banhammer before you hurt yourself. "Your disruption" <-- According to wiki common law, don't you have to link to my policy violation when you threaten to block me? "Wikiversity is now under attack" <-- Attack? with Jimbo having lost his toy banhammer and Adambro on vacation I thought I could smell fresh air. You are topic-banned from Wikiversity space pending review" <-- What does that ("topic-banned from Wikiversity space") mean and what Wikiversity policy authorizes you to impose any ban? Your threat of a ban appears to be a serious violation of Wikiversity policy. "I regret that this has become necessary" Necessary? There is a simple fix to your pain: just agree to adopt the role of Drama Queen. --JWSchmidt 21:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. I may not have the tools more than a few minutes longer, though it's moot about JWS, because SBJ did intervene. However, if Ottava had not shown that he didn't want protection, revision deletion, from your outing, Barry, I'd have blocked you for restoring it by IP. Given how much history there was over this, it would probably have been indef. That was thin ice, Barry. Don't advise JWS to skate on thin ice. I gave Ottava a Final Warning because he'd not only told me, effectively, to jump in the lake, but also because I saw him continuing. I don't know if JWS continued, I hadn't checked. Would the blocks have been reverted if I'd not been interrupted? Would you or JWS want to find out? Up to you, you know. Go jump in the lake may have been satisfying to you, and who am I do deprive you of your pleasure. It wasn't the "go jump in the lake" that stopped me, nor would I have blocked you for telling me that. Period. After all, what if the lake is a nice natural warm-water spring? Aaahhhhh! Sure sounds nice, here in Mass this winter, eh?
Barry, I have experts harassing me on Wikipedia, and I'm not banned there. I don't tell them to jump in a lake, and when I thought it worthy of attention, I took one to ArbComm. No longer a sysop, precisely because of that. I know how to do it. Here, piffle! Who cares? If I'm desysopped, it merely means I don't have to clean up the piles of crap that accumulate, and don't have to worry about the likes of Ottava and JWS. Or you, for that matter. At least, though, you're funny, comic relief. Ottava is that, in a different sense. JWS is merely a sad case. Apparently, you haven't actually helped him. Well, neither did I, apparently, he wouldn't listen. Horse to water. Or lake, as the case may be. --Abd 22:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I presume you were also prepared to block a quarter million IPs in Eastern Massachusetts, plus a bunch more in two other states. You might want to ask some of the Custodians who came before you how well that idea went over. —Moulton 22:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
No, just two accounts and one IP. Isn't that what you wanted? Look, I'm just telling you what I'd have done. Don't like it, go jump in a lake. It's what I'd do, and, not being a custodian any more, what I'd do if I am again, under those conditions. Custodial behvior should be predictable. It's part of the Rule of Law.--Abd 02:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This is typical Moulton crappy math. Garbage in, garbage out. "Rule of Law" does not mean rigidity, it means relative predictability. Substance, Moulton, don't leave home without it. --Abd 02:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A request[edit]

Abd, could you please talk to your mentor before making any more warnings, declarations of emergencies, or using your tools in a manner that might be controversial? I know you mean well, but you're really just making things worse. WV is not going to be deleted tomorrow just because you didn't respond to something. --SB_Johnny talk 23:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Abd, I am concerned about your warnings to JWSchmidt and Ottava added in the last 24 hours. I share some of your concerns, but (a) not to the level of it being emergency (massive vandalism or harrassment might be emergency); (b) suggest such concerns be discussed first at a community level (and/or with a mentor) to consider possible actions. I think I'm coming to realise that perhaps this kind of cycle may be too slow in your view in this situation? (Remember we are on different sides of the planet and hence have daily cycles that are half a day apart). To me, it's looking a bit like a lot of chickens running around without heads at the moment. You might feel that this should have been prevented by earlier, stronger action. I know you mean well and, who knows, you're way may work, but personally I would advise that another way is to try to work with others, to understand them, and to consult with community rather than using claimed authority to direct others' actions. Where this doesn't seem workable, then gaining community consensus about how to act towards resolving conflict would seem preferable to potentially controversial warning, blocking etc. in a unilateral manner. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 20:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Note that SBJ already intervened, and I've announced that I'm not able to enforce those warnings, already. SBJ has already announced his intention to close with desysop. There has been, in fact, massive "harassment" and I can establish that. Trying to work with Ottava and JWS has been my effort for a long time. I can show where it failed, again and again, an example just today where Ottava removed a helpful comment from his Talk page, describing it as harassment. His behavior went over the top, if we look back, when I warned and blocked him for gross incivility, you already reviewed that. When you confirmed the warning, he then attacked you. Ottava has realized that if he attacks an admin who warns him, he creates the appearance of a recusal requirement and then he can scream that he's being harassed. It's a clear pattern, and it's happening on meta, he's been attacking every steward who disagrees with him. And, interestingly, it works. His disruption at meta has reached a level that I've never seen before, most users would have been blocked long before, because they don't attack everyone. He's been learning quite a lesson!
Nobody was harassing Ottava, he wasn't being pursued, and there still is no ban proposal. However, if you look back at the RfC on JWS from last year, you'll see a topic ban proposal from me. It was ignored. I pointed out that any admin could implement it, already, on normal discretion, in lieu of block. So those topic bans were designed to do what I'd expressed, before, any admin could do. The full description allowed everything legitimate, and would do minimal damage. It's highly flexible. But ... still not being considered. At one point, there was a proposal to indef block JWS, and it had more support than opposition, as I recall. Yet a lesser remedy? No comment! This is an example of the paralysis of Wikiversity, and I'd rather not be a part of it.
The "other way" you are proposing has been the default for years now. It fails with some people, and with those people, the very effort to discuss creates more and more damage. There are ways to leave the door open to legitimate communication, and I demonstrated these ways with Thekohser and Moulton; it was easiest with Thekohser because he actually cooperated. Moulton did not, so the resolution, bringing us to the present situation, took much longer. Self-reversion is a proposal that will work with someone totally site-banned, properly understood. Yes, it seems crazy, after all, isn't a ban a ban? However, this was proposed on Wikipedia, initially, for a highly disruptive user who had been topic banned. I cleared it with an arb first. It was rejected by that user, however, since his very purpose was disruption, not legitimate contribution. It worked, then, with another topic-banned user, spectacularly. The user's self-reverted contributions were brought back in by the editor who had asked for the topic ban! Thus cooperation was created where there had been conflict.
Self-reversion on Wikipedia was rejected when the "ban is a ban" faction simply ignored self-reversion and blocked anyway, thus tossing out the old wiki principle of only blocking for harmful contributions. Plain ban edits do harm, because they complicate enforcement. But self-reverted edits don't cause that, since enforcement need only consider, then, self-reverted edits that are so disruptive, in themselves, that someone complains.
I know my ideas seem crazy to some. But, I assure you, I don't propose stuff that is not likely to work.
In this case, a ban that allows self-reversion simply puts the user on something that is, elsewhere standard deliberative process, a proposal is not considered until seconded. This means that bans need not be absolute. They merely establish a very minor and efficient review process. I could write the details in a guideline, experience with self-reversion has shown that there are a few issues to consider, to nail down.
If self-reversion is possible, a ban does less damage, the user can still efficiently contribute. (Self-reversion takes seconds, literally! -- both meanings of second!). Thus bans can be more freely considered, providing intermediate remedies. And there is more to be considered.
I believe that both warnings were legitimate, with the only problem being my perceived recusal requirement. I also believe that the sky has already fallen, that massive damage has been done to Wikiversity in terms of users driven away, who believe the place is unstable, because this amazing disruption was allowed to continue, and the only effort to stop it was opposed. That's been seen, I have email, and so ....
Wikiversity structure is not scalable, as is. If WV were to grow rapidly, the problems would get worse by the square of the number of participating users. The level of difficulty is kept down because the conflict drives away users, thus WV is keeping itself small by failing to address the problems. There are solutions that are possible. It's time we consider them, and try some of them out. We will not get this guidance from Wikipedia, they grew way too fast and failed to provide for the real problems of scale, so they burn people out rapidly. --Abd 20:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

section headers[edit]

Did you notice that this edit [4] broke the section headers in WV:CR so that /Abd is now a subsection of the /SBJ discussion? Questions of content aside, the formatting of these reviews is unreadable and edits like the above make things more difficult to follow. --mikeu talk 18:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry for the trouble, you could have reverted, you may revert anything I do, and we'll work it out, I assume. --Abd 18:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

About more than section headers![edit]

Umm, yeah, I've been around here long enough to know that I could have reverted... I wanted to take a moment to let you know that the edit broke the formatting so that you are aware of this next time you try to organize sections in that page, and to bring up the more general issue that the poor organization of the review pages is likely not encouraging participation. --mikeu talk 19:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Of course. But -- I didn't organize those pages! In the draft I was putting together for what was filed by SBJ as Wikiversity:Community Review/Ottava Rima, i.e., User:Abd/Community Review/Ottava Rima, I was working on a more Wikipedia-like structure, with defined, "owned" sections organized to make collection of evidence and argument clearer. As it stands -- I never finished this work -- it may look like a mess, but there are some basic principles that we've been neglecting.
First of all, on a CR, there should be no !voting before a complete and coherent set of charges and evidence is presented. Proposals for action should not even be presented first. After some review of charges and evidence, then proposals should be made. There should be no !voting on the proposals until that stage is complete. What we do is like having a jury in a trial vote on guilt or innocence before the evidence has been gathered and presented. And then those jury members leave the court, and don't look back. After all, they already commented! It's a well-known problem, and is why closers often look at the most recent comments, since they are more likely to have reviewed all the evidence.
In my CR, the original !voters were not !voting in a CR, they were voting on a topic ban proposal on the Colloquium, and the reasons given were downright weird and not related to the "egregious abuse" that is supposed to justify desysopping. The most outrageous thing, as to appearance, that I did, was to later block Ottava when clearly involved in a dispute with him. However, the appearance of retaliatory blocking was created and amplified by Ottava, deliberately.
I'd requested neutral custodian attention to the situation. Days went by with no response. I then announced my intention to act, and explicitly allowed any custodian to ask me to stop, and I'd stop. I allowed any custodian to short-block me, if they feared some action that would do serious harm, before I saw a request to stop. I warned Ottava over his threats of blocking, his attempted intimidation of me, all the 'crats, and another user who had dared to oppose his proposals about SBJ.
Ottava promptly filed the topic ban proposal, and it worked. When I blocked him for violating the warning, even a WP arb chimed in that this was an obvious problem, blocking some user who had filed process against the admin. My guess, the arb had not reviewed what had happened. Classic wikilawyering trick, and the reason why WP admins have generally opposed recusal policy. But what I was showing was how to have such a policy and still allow a custodian to act. Wikiversity:Recusal should be implemented, and it would have protected me, and only if, on review, my actions had been found dangerous, would I still have been sanctioned.
We need a process for approval of CRs, they should not be allowed to make decisions except after satisfying some standard. An easy default one would be that a CR cannot create a sanction for a user unless it's been listed in the site message for the prescribed period. Being listed in the cite message requires, as a minimum, that a sysop determine that the charges made are worthy of review by the community. It could be argued that this would require a 'crat, not an ordinary sysop. What we have now are a pile of CRs, including my desysop "hearing," with no site message. The people who would support me mostly were not aware of the process. I did not canvass, period, beyond placing a notice on my Talk page where a few might see it. (I wasn't notified that I was the subject of a Community Review! That is not a mere technicality.) --Abd 19:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
You do realize that few people are going to read a post as long as the one above in its entirety, right? I'm emphatically _not_ blaming you for the disorganization of the CR page, but merely asking you to take a look at the overall structure when you consider adding comments. Personally, if I weren't a custodian and crat who feels obliged to follow as much of the community discussions as I can - I would be so turned off by the length and convoluted structure of theses pages that I wouldn't even think of reading them, never mind commenting there. I wonder how many occasional contributers who might like to add a quick note feel the same... I notice that Ottava has created a page to discuss possible modifications to the probationary custodian process. Perhaps you could make a few brief and constructive comments there to help us clarify how we should handle mentorship in the future to avoid the conflicts that have occurred recently... That will likely be far more productive than adversarial comments and confrontations in review pages. --mikeu talk 20:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, Mike, I don't anticipate that you are not one of the few. Are you? You can read it or not, it's your choice, but I do expect that the core of WV administration be deeper and less like a grasshopper. Did you look at that proposed CR linked above? It could be improved by using subpages, definitely. As to what's been shown by recent events, confrontation and massive incivility won. I'm really wondering what course to take, because thoughtful and careful consideration was rejected. I'm seriously concerned that Wikiversity may not be able to handle the coming challenges, that the problems are too deep-rooted. Ottava, I know, has driven away highly experienced users. The place, quite simply, isn't safe. And that's fatal to my interest, if it continues.
While ordinarily I'd be very sympathetic to your approach, it was utterly inadequate to address the problems of this community in 2008, early 2010, and now. There are some users with whom it simply fails. People are different, and one size does not fit all. If you accommodate certain highly disturbed people, you will lose saner ones. There are intermediate solutions, but doing nothing flat-out fails. Good luck. --Abd 21:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I read about 1/4 of the 6 paragraph post above. Quite frankly, your views are well known and there is little need for me to read such verbose repetition. Let me ask you for a quick answer to a simple question: without mentioning any specific user - how do you think wv can improve the dispute resolution process? --mikeu talk 21:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Start paying attention. And if reading six effing short paragraphs is too much, written by a user with more than twenty years of on-line administrative experience, as well as decades of other organizational experience, who was working his tail off doing routine custodial tasks here, as well as trying to protect the community, asking for help continually, consulting, while under intense attack, then go away. Having empty shells pretending to be responsible bureaucrats doesn't help Wikiversity. You are part of the problem, that's what I see. How does it feel? --Abd 00:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I've other, more detailed suggestions, but I'm not going to bother laying them out for you, pearls before swine, waste of my time. I'll propose them to the community, through effective process, or not at all. --Abd 00:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I'm paying attention. I'm also taking the time to try to talk with you. I appreciate that you've kept the reply brief, thank you. FWIW, I also plan to try to engage a couple of other frequent contributers... but one thing at a time.
Let's say a group of people meet in a room to have an important discussion. During this discussion one or two of the people at the table so dominate the conversation that the other ten people in the room can't get a word in edge-wise. I would not describe that situation as a "community discussion." No matter how important or seemingly urgent the view of one or two people in the group, it is critical for the group to get a broad range of opinions and to facilitate an environment where timid contributers feel comfortable sharing their views. --mikeu talk 01:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I can't both answer you with care and be extremely brief; it takes me way too much time to even try. So, I'll simply say, if this is too long, go away, fly a kite, whatever. If you want to know what I think, you'll have to tolerate my mode of expression. You are not obligated, not by me anyway, to spend the time.
"Paying attention" was generic. If you were paying attention during the period when the user I blocked was threatening practically everyone, and I was begging for sysop attention, and then finally declared an intention to act, unless advised otherwise, why did you stand back and watch? "Paying attention" means that, in some way or other, every member of the community is responsible for some level of "paying attention." And we can make this much easier and much more efficient.
Sure, Mike, about the "dominating the conversation" issue, I've been dealing with this issue for about twenty-five years, on-line. In person, there are process techniques for preventing the problem you note, and it is, in person, a serious problem. Ten people in a room? Can all talk at once? No, for effective communication, only one can talk at a time. If one person goes on and on, the rest must wait, and that is often quite wasteful.
But on the w:W.E.L.L., where I was a moderator, I realized something. All people could talk at the same time. All people could express their ideas at the same time, and then read what interested them from others, skipping what they weren't interested in. Yet, there and on mailing lists, I saw this argument, the one you are raising, still raised. It was as if the freedom to skip boring or useless comments didn't exist. There is, in on-line "conversation," no way to prevent someone from "getting a word in edge-wise." (in really hot wiki conversations, there can arise edit conflicts, but that is a problem with the frequency of comment, and length actually reduces that problem, it does not make it worse.)
The real nature of this problem is in review of a page. And the solution is in refactoring, a process which is work, but which is essential for establishing true consensus. A page with many comments from many users, very long, is just as hard to read if not harder, than a page with only a few long comments. So in a complete process, users might be asked to summarize their comments, or might allow others to do so (that's even better, in fact, with good facilitation). I've used various devices: collapse boxes, archiving sections to history and then linking them, subpages, etc.
It's work. Consensus is work. But there is no real substitute for consensus, and no real consensus without thorough discussion, except practically by accident. I experimented with process on Wikipedia, where I was able to punch through some serious POV-pushing noise, demonstrating effective, lasting consensus in spite of attempts to disrupt it, would you like a pointer? --Abd 02:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


What are you talking about on User:Newseerr/List of president of Maybeury Elementary School and soccer , Jacklover1--Jacklover1 14:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I think you are talking about the page User_talk:Newseerr/List_of_president_of_Maybeury_Elementary_School_and_soccer, and my comment here.
Wikiversity has a policy, Wikiversity:Privacy, that requires that minors -- children under the age of 18 -- not provide personal information. It says: "If you are a young contributor, please do not share your name, age, location, address, or any other personal information about yourself with anyone."
My opinion is that your first name is not "personal information," and using your last initial, as with Aaqib A., for example, isn't a problem. I'm not attempting to enforce the policy strictly, and, in fact, I can't enforce it at all, except by asking others. I will attempt to protect what you do, but if you use full names, and also use "Maybeury Elementary School," that does identify you. So, please don't do that! I'm suggesting you use first names and last initials. That should be enough for you to communicate with each other and connect what you do in real life with what you do on Wikiversity, but nobody else will know.
If what appear to be real names keep appearing, probably Wikiversity administration will fully delete it all, and block not only the accounts involved, but the internet connection for the school, and I'm trying to prevent that.
Is this clear? Any questions? --Abd 15:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Comments like "is a tendentious and vengeful liar" [5] and "is a hypocrite" [6] are extremely unproductive and only serve to inflame an already tense environment. Please keep your comments within WV:CIVIL and WV:AGF. --mikeu talk 20:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A few days too late, Mike. I've checked your contributions.
Ah, but the comments are 100% accurate and verified in evidence.[7][8] To quote the immortal Moulton,[9] Nem zich a vaneh. --Abd 21:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Those quoted comments have no place in a civil discussion and wv policy does not give a pass for "accurate and verified." Please try to make constructive suggestions on how we can improve the process and policy on wv without restorting to language that escalates confrontations. --mikeu talk 22:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. "Please" sounds nice. However, you are still days too late. You are warning kids about playing with matches when the barn just burned down and the house is on fire. You are absolutely correct about policy, there is no "pass for "accurate and verified." However, that was a quote from Ottava. Did you notice that? I did provide diffs. Yeah, that was the old original cause for my first block. I was desysopped for that one, too, by Ottava, unilaterally, contrary to policy. Where were you then?
Indeed, did you read the diffs? That was certainly not a long response. Did you assume that the diffs pointed to evidence that Ottava was lying, or that so-and-so was a hypocrite?
Jtneill stands out from the community because, when I covered my custodial actions, the previous period, he took the time to review them, and he confirmed that the warning and block of Ottava were properly within discretion. So ... what did the community do? They supported booting the probationer who had dared to warn and short-block his mentor -- he must be crazy --. That sucked. But they did this because they didn't know the history. Happens all the time on wikis. Generic problem.
Where were you when I was begging for neutral intervention? I was begging for one custodian to say, "I'm looking into it, Abd, please don't act while I'm checking this out." You had become aware of the situation by then, but you didn't do that, you merely consented to the desysop. That sucked, Mike. You had the right, already, if you'd been paying attention, to yank the bit, I allowed that any 'crat could do it without discussion. (I referred to the right of SBJ to do it constantly, there would have been no way he could have missed it.) However, it wouldn't have been necessary. You could simply have dropped a note on my Talk page, asking me to back off, assuring me that you were aware and were acting to protect the wiki, and I asked for that kind of intervention. I asked for that from any custodian. None responded.
You are complicit, a sin of omission. You saw, you did not act, you stood back and let the flames rise. So, now, deal with it! Maybe it's not too late. But if you think I'm the problem, you haven't checked. Take your time, but you could have acted easily then, and you didn't. It might be more difficult now. --Abd 22:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The above comments stand, and you are still welcome to jump in a lake if it pleases you, but I have refactored the comments you pointed to, and a little more, to "tone it down" just a bit. However, there has been massive incivility rampant for the last few weeks, with practically nothing done about it. That you chose my comments, singling them out, says what? To me, this is simply a symptom of the problem, and that I wasn't actually warned, not to mention blocked, for what I certainly agree was outside of normal civility requirements, is a proof that the community is unable to deal with disruption, and that this condition continues. It's not going to work, Mike. Your selective attention is part of the problem, and you, and SBJ, shot the messenger. I don't suggest you resign, you aren't that harmful. But you certainly have not been able to address the problems that have afflicted Wikiversity for more than two years, and you consider attempts to deal with it to be excessive, even though its a wiki and everything I did was easily reversible, and I was begging, first, for attention and involvement from neutral custodians, for days, even though I invited review and even consented to being short-blocked if a custodian -- any custodian -- thought me likely to act inappropriately. You took a 100% appropriate emergency response to a truly disruptive situation and behaved as if it were the problem. That sucks, in a word. It might help if you apologize, but, I understand, you might need to see some evidence first. Do you need the evidence? Have you reviewed the list of blatant offenses against Wikiversity order, threats and bullying, that I listed in the discussion of my block of Ottava? Do you need a pointer to it? --Abd 17:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Audio Circuit Design[edit]

Abd, on my blog, you wrote:

I could have used the information [on audio circuits] when I was designing them.

When you were playing around with audio circuits, did you ever run into the curious design that exploited polyons (or polions) in the negative feedback path?

That design might be of some interest to you.

Moulton 15:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Never did. And why would an audio design be of interest to me? --Abd 15:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Your comment, cited above, from my blog, led me to believe you had some interest in the design of audio circuits. Perhaps your one-time interest has waned (or even turned to ennui). —Moulton 16:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
No, it indicated that I had experience with such design. I was paid. Audio circuit design was not my special expertise. By the way, one of the designs I did was for a phone system, a remote "extension" maintained over a fiber optic line to a power plant valve station. They needed to use fiber to avoid damage from lightning. "Valve" is understatement, this was a w:cone valve that controlled a spillway for a large dam, part of a hydroelectric station. And I had to deal with high-speed data errors in the circuitry, and I had absolutely inadequate equipment. The scope I have now, I'd have given my eye teeth for, then. (and, yes, a data error would produce a "pop." Popcorn noise. The company couldn't afford the equipment. There wasn't a problem with the audio part, this was a complex time-multiplexed fiber optic link, handling data in both directions; I had to set up a phone "transceiver" at the power station end and then a remote phone at the cone valve end. In the cone valve station, if the valve was open, you couldn't hear yourself think, the noise was so great.
  • That w:cone valve redirects to w:Tap (valve) is a neat example of Wikipediocy. I'm insufficiently exercised to fix it. The cone in the cone valve may have been about ten feet across or more. Driven by a motor, very simple in principle, spectacular in execution. --Abd 16:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Did you ever do plain old telephony with good old copper wire and good old carbon button microphones? —Moulton 17:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe as a kid. I certainly took phones apart! You imagine that this is relevant to bubble noise in CF experiments, it's bizarre. Sure, a carbon mike is similar in some ways, to a bubble noise source, I think a carbon mike in series with a constant current power supply of any oomph won't generate the kind of high-frequency noise that would overwhelm the capacity of the supply to maintain current regulation, I'm expecting. Got any figures? (On the other hand, there might indeed be more higher-frequency noise with a carbon mike than with bubbles, since there could be rapid contact/no contact transitions, switching noise, that won't exist in the bubble noise environment, where none of the transitions are truly rapid. So maybe there are some details here that I haven't addressed. You've simply assumed that the carbon mike was analogous, then have run on about carbon mikes at great length. Switches do generate high-frequency transients, when the switching action is rapid. Bubbles don't move rapidly, and there is no sudden make/break contact involved, just a slow growth of a bubble, very gradually reducing conductivity, then a release which will be more rapid, but still quite slow compared to what would be needed to stress the constant-current supply. I'd be surprised to see anything above 10 KHz.
There is zero evidence for bubble noise at frequencies that would be needed to produce even a small error in power supply input estimation from using average voltage, through the introduction of current noise at anything other than negligible levels, and there is quite ample evidence -- proof! -- that such noise is not significant. You have consistently avoided addressing the evidence against your theory. That's Bad Science, to only assert arguments and evidence on one side, neglecting all the contrary evidence. To be fair, some of the contrary evidence that I have is from private communications, once I asked about this. Power meters and high-speed data acquisition have been used, and aren't routinely used because simple averaging of voltage, with multiplication by set current, comes up with the same results. I.e., there is no current noise effect. On the other hand, some of the evidence is public, and you've seen it, I'm sure. Why don't you address it? Or do you prefer to go on and on with song parodies, as if those were science itself?
I also can make an estimation of the level of voltage noise, from some data sent me by a researcher. I don't know, yet, the data aquisition detials, specifically the sample rate and sample averaging time (all ADCs have an averaging time, effectively, but that's over a acquisition window, which could be very short even if the sampling rate is slow.)
What I've been sent is a plot of voltage and current. This was in a situation where the supply monitors *power* and adjusts the current setting so that power remains constant. The adjustments are not frequent, and are probably based on average voltage, but the voltage is recorded directly, and you can see quite a bit of voltage noise (the current plots are absolutely flat, no noise is visible in them, and then when current is changed, it's an abrupt transition that only occurs rarely.
The plot has a time scale in minutes, and it looks like LabView is recording the voltage discretely, once a minute. So we see a jagged line for voltage, as if it were triangle waves. But that simply an artifact of how the data is plotted, straight lines are drawn between data points.
The data sent to me was for 300 minutes. For the first 180 minutes, we see flat current at 1.190 amps. During this period, the voltage is recorded as values between 7.42 volts and 7.55 volts. That last voltage was an isolated point, mostly the voltage was at 7.43 volts plus or minus 0.05 volts. This is for a period with about 180 samples. I was told that the voltage, for this plot, was not averaged, that this was raw data. LabView, though, does calculate average power, over some sampling time longer than 1 minute, and, at 180 minutes, the voltage increased to about 7.43 volts average, it was at 180 minutes that LabView then adjusted the set current down to 1.180 amps, where it stayed for about 25 minutes. (The power is not displayed, it's only used to periodically adjust the set current to maintain average power within a certain deviation.)
This is a current experiment using dual laser stimulation. For the first 180 minutes or so, the lasers were tuned out of resonance. what happened at 180 minutes appears to be that they were tuned into resonance, thus doubling the effective peak intensity of laser stimulation without changing the overall input laser power. Excess power appeared at this point, per calorimetry (I don't have the temperature data, he merely stated this).
Cell temperature increasing, cell resistance was reduced, and cell voltage dropped, at 205 minutes, rather rapidly to 7.22 volts. LabView then increased the current to 1.190 volts for about five minutes, then, at about 210 minutes, to 1.200 volts for the remainder of the time.
Your theory predicts that the noise will be greater with greater current. However, the voltage noise is quite noticeably less with the higher current. Voltage settled at about 7.39 volts for the remainder of the term, with the variation being plus or minus about 25 millivolts.
It looks to me like bubble noise may actually decrease in amplitude with increased current, blowing your theory out of the heavy water. That's not surprising, with the modest bubbling involved in this type of CF experiment. More bubbles could mean that resistance remains closer to average. You've been thinking of what was done with interruptors, where bubbling was so great as to actually cover the whole surface with a bubble, which then released, so frequently and with such a drastic effect on cell current that the cell was roaring. From the voltage variations described in the experiment I'm looking at, the changes in cell resistance were small.
This researcher also wrote:
I have used three methods to measure input power over the years: A fluke 105b oscilloscope, a Clarke-Hess 2330 power meter and just reading the GPIB of the HP E3632 power supply. At 8-10W of electrolysis power, all three methods give essentially the same result, so for convenience I simply rely on reading the HP power supply with Labview.
I think that the methods of this researcher are common, the approach is extremely simple and requires nothing other than the power supply itself, monitored and controlled with LabView. The voltage variance indicates that noise power is small. The coincidence of three methods of calculating input power, two of which would be expected to be able to handle noise power including current noise, shows that current noise and its effect must be small. And the researcher didn't mention the calorimetry itself as a confirmation. Since it is, in the end, calorimetry itself that is the source of excess heat data, that zero excess heat is shown when the laser stimulation is out-of-resonance shows that the input power measurements are solid, and we see the same thing with the McKubre data you have referred to. Same bubbling, no excess heat phenomenon, hydrogen the same as deuterium, same power supply "noise" to the extent that it's there, demonstrates that input power is being correctly estimated.
Now, are you going to stop asserting a bankrupt hypothesis? Or will you continue until, what? A public declaration by the Scientific Consensus Organization? Which, as you know, doesn't exist? What will it take?
The hypothesis that CF excess heat is caused by misting or power supply noise -- the two hypotheses contradict each other, by the way, since they would be additive in open cells, whereas open cells are not more productive of excess heat -- is totally unlikely for a simple reason: this error would have been easy to reproduce, and would have been reproduced and then identified, quickly. All it would have taken would have been an exact replication, which I'm sure was tried. In fact, exact replicators, who persisted, became the community of "believers," as you'd have it. The early negative replications did not reach the loading levels that were required to get the excess heat phenomenon to show up. (They stopped at about 70%. Over 90% is where CF heat starts to show up, but still chaotically.) Don't confuse loading levels with current and bubbling rates. All cells, once reaching the loading maximum for the palladium sample, would bubble the same with the same current. The difference was mostly in how the palladium sample was prepared, the surface characteristics and probably nanostructure variations produce by the sample history. It took about a decade to figure out how to prepare palladium to get the heat to show up more reliably.
Essentially, the early replication failures demonstrate that your hypothesis is incorrect! Following the same procedures, others would have come up with the same results: misting and power supply error from bubble noise would have been quite reproducible. And then they would have noticed the white deposits from cell salts at the cell vent, and they would have nailed that one, and they would have checked the power supply noise and done a recalculation of excess heat, then finding none. Easy peasy, Barry. It didn't happen. That would have been real science. Instead we got your bogus version, you have simply replicated the laziness of the "scientific community" in 1989-1990. Figure out some "possible artifact," then sit back and watch the researchers scramble to show that it doesn't exist, and when they do (they did this for quite a number of such suggestions!), figure out another "possible artifact," and, since human ingenuity is limitless, this could go on forever, with researchers struggling to satisfy the maw of relentless skeptics.
Instead, they turned away from the skeptics and kept working on how to improve reliability, how to determine the necessary conditions. Once McKubre had seen the excess heat you've referred to with his famous P13/P14 graph, he knew the phenomenon was real. He knew that there wasn't the kind of power supply noise you claim. He wasn't about to waste his time satisfying critics like you. He was paid to do actual research, and he did it, and that has continued.
For any of you who have read this far, see Naturwissenschaften for an actual recent peer-reviewed formal review of the field, preprint copy at [10]. This is the state of the science at this time, in spite of some continued skepticism in popular media.
There is a PowerPoint presentation of the information in the Storms review at [11]. I know the material; if I didn't, I wouldn't be convinced by that presentation; for example, the shown SPAWAR triple cathode results, showing CR-39 radiation tracks, show both sides of the detector, which is not stated. The heaviest tracking is on the back side, at the position of, but away from, the gold cathode. Those are certainly tracks resulting from proton knock-on from neutron impact in the detector material itself, not charged particle radiation directly. It's quite possible that none of the SPAWAR tracks are from direct charged-particle radiation. Just neutrons. Those tracks were accumulated over a period of weeks. This is very low-level radiation, mostly would escape notice with electronic detectors.
Because neutrons were very much not expected, you can see years of work by SPAWAR that assumed the CR-39 results they were getting were from charged-particle radiation, since that is what an SSNTD normally shows. Criticism of the SPAWAR work has focused on the front-side results, and since these were "wet configuration," the detector was actually immersed in the electrolyte, and next to -- even in contact with -- the cathode, there was a substantial probability of much of the damage shown being due to "chemical damage" from the complex environment near the cathode, and, in fact, that's what some of the results look like. It was not until SPAWAR noticed that there was damage even when the mylar covering of the CR-39 had accidentally been left on, and they looked at the back side, that they realized they were seeing something else, and when they found characteristic triple-tracks, they knew they were seeing neutrons. They were not permitted to release this information for some time, they are, after all, a military laboratory.... --Abd 19:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Far be it from me to usufruct such tumid balderdash. —Moulton 19:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
It certainly is far from you. That's the point. You are out of touch. Mainstream science has moved on, you are holding on to old ideas, imagining that your theories, which are based on an incomplete experience set, are still valid. It's visible to others, Barry. It's not just me.
If the above was "balderdash," what part? Pick a sentence or paragraph. If you can. --Abd 20:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This is rubbish:

There is zero evidence for bubble noise at frequencies that would be needed to produce even a small error in power supply input estimation from using average voltage, through the introduction of current noise at anything other than negligible levels, and there is quite ample evidence -- proof! -- that such noise is not significant.

There is copious evidence that dates back at least 130 years.

Moulton 20:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Something specific. My comment refers to evidence applying to electrolysis under normal cold fusion conditions, which means slow evolution of gas, not very rapid evolution. It means that it is quiet, for example, you might nor might not hear any bubbling noise at all. It would mean actual measurement of noise under those conditions, or actual measurement of true power showing a significant error from current noise. Or the like. None of what you have asserted as "copious evidence that dates back at least 130 years" relates to these conditions. There is noise. That's not the issue. The noise is even significant, as to voltage noise. That's not the issue. The issue is current noise, under conditions of the use of a good constant-current power supply. The experimental evidence is entirely contradictory to that current noise being adequate to introduce significant error. You have showed not one example of an actual noise measurement under constant-current power supply conditions. I gave some real measurements above. They indicate low voltage noise. Was that data complete? No. Could there be some level of current noise concealed? Yes. However, that the method the researcher used has been confirmed by an actual, high-bandwidth power meter is proof that the theoretical possibility is not realized. Further, current noise would be lower, under constant current conditions, than the voltage noise. So it must be very low.
This is my point. You have dredged up "evidence" that doesn't relate to the actual problem. You point to interruptors, which operate under drastically different conditions (but do involve major "bubble noise"), you point to carbon microphones, which also operate under very different conditions, the movement of carbon granules that act like little switches, or maybe little variable resistors (I think that's more like it, pressure changes the contact surface and thus lowers resistance) but in no case do you point to the actual situation, the use of a constant current power supply with a device which produces bubble noise. (Nor do you point to any evidence about the use of a carbon microphone with a constant current power supply, nor to an interruptor with a constant current supply -- which would certainly not be able to maintain constant current at all, with complete interruption!) A constant current power supply and bubble noise is something that only electrochemists deal with, routinely. And they do understand it, which is why the electrochemist I quoted had originally measured the power in three ways, two of which would be unaffected by the kind of noise you are asserting. It's why McKubre made the statement he made in his research report. Contrary to what you have claimed, he explicitly addressed the issue, but you simply didn't understand it, and we've been over that at great length.
And when I explain this carefully, and in detail, you just dismiss it as balderdash or wall-of-text. You are transparent, Barry, and you are not accustomed to dealing with someone who both understands the issues and your responses. Must be frustrating, I'm sure! You are used to people who will just get angry, especially when you write atrocious song parodies about how obtuse, stupid, power-hungry, and basically ridiculous they are. I'm telling you the truth, and, I suspect, somewhere you know it. --Abd 21:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


"revert warring" <-- What do you mean by "revert warring"? I was developing a learning resource about silly games that disrupt Wikiversity. I have no idea why Guido came to Wikiversity, but he has shown an interest in destroying the work of Wikiversity community members....I object to disruption of Wikiversity by misguided people who delete rather than edit and block rather than learn. Can I count on you to stalk me and violate policy every time I protect a Wikiversity learning resource from destruction? "that personal attack" <-- Describing the misguided and disruptive behavior of others is not a personal attack. "effectively, vandalism" <-- By what definition of vandalism? Your bill for wasting my time continues to escalate. --JWSchmidt 01:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do you ask me here? The questions are loaded, I've found that answers just encourage more useless questions with more incorporated assumptions. Unless you are willing to consider that you've misread the situation, stay off my talk page. You have a formal warning to give, okay, but my warning to you was clear and if you don't understand it, that, in itself, is dangerous.
I will note your response on the RCA page. --Abd 02:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

I have filed an incident report on Wikipedia. [12] So, the proverbial s**t is about to hit the proverbial fan. This may spill over onto Wikiversity. --KBlott 19:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Lamb to the slaughter, KBlott. The way you have gone about this won't work. I did investigate, and the block stinks, and I might be able to help, but it would take your full cooperation, and it may take time. One step at a time. Please do not attempt to "inform us" -- the Wikiversity community -- about the behavior of specific users on WP, unless there is urgent need here for it, and even then, think twice. I'm on an iPhone, I'll write more later. For now, sit on your hands or do something useful here. Thanks. --Abd 22:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Abd is right, "evading the block" will get you nowhere, because you'll be ignored by rote. I'm actually an admin on WP, so maybe you and I could work on something that I could help you with. --SB_Johnny talk 22:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, SBJ. Absent proof, my assumption is that KBlott is incorrect about the admin and AIDS denialism, but it's entirely possible that the checkuser was put on the trail by someone who is biased. I've been thinking of writing some stuff here about generic problem-solving on Wikipedia. There are effective ways, and perhaps we should not keep a tight hold on the secrets! First step is to get an offended user to simmer down! That requires, usually, some seasoned users to both comfort the user -- being blocked on Wikipedia is not the end of the world, irritating as it can be -- and start to help negotiate what needs negotiation. The worst thing for a blocked editor to do is claim bias on the part of the administrator, it is practically guaranteed to go nowhere, whether or not the admin is biased.
I'm not seeing that KBlott was blocked from editing his Talk page, and he did not appeal the block there. First mistake. Instead, he complained with socks and by IP. Second mistake. He'd already used socks before, but it doesn't look disruptive to me, but, undisclosed socks, maybe a mistake, maybe not. He believed they were legitimate, apparently. As implied by guidelines....
KBlott, I'll defer to SBJ, here, but your first step might be to put up an unblock template. You should have been informed how to do that, one of the ways in which this block sucked was that. You were booted, firmly, by a checkuser, with no real public evidence to back it up. As I wrote, it sucked. SBJ, here I would use {{unblock|reason --~~~~}} and I'd suggest the following reason, if it's true:
  • I believed that my use of socks was legitimate, and I didn't think I used them abusively, until I was blocked; however, as my reason for using socks has been made moot by the checkuser revelations, I will not use any account other than KBlott, and I will not edit as IP. If I have any remaining disputes with editors, including the administrator who blocked me, I will follow proper dispute resolution process, and I will seek the advice of others, including any administrator who unblocks me, before proceeding. Thanks for considering this. (signature)
What do you think, SBJ? --Abd 23:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
One more comment. While checkusers are allowed to do investigations themselves, this allows discrete resolution of certain problems, and was not intended to set up checkusers as complainant, investigator, prosecutor, judge, and executioner, all rolled into one. I'm highly concerned about this block on that basis, and I find it very strange that the checkuser would do this, I've seen no checkuser behave like that since, ahem, a certain big fella. The ultimate result of that CU's work was a sock master with 600 socks and counting, and massive range blocks. He was asked to step down, and did. This might be a job for Wikipedia Review, as well.... but one step at a time.... I'll happily discuss this by email.
The checkuser in this situation appears to have violated privacy policy without adequate cause. But to be sure about that will take detailed investigation.
As I think you know, I'm prohibited from intervening in any disputes on Wikipedia unless I'm a "primary party." That does not, in fact, prohibit me from filing an ArbComm case if I think it needed. As the one filing an action, I'd be a primary party, and my dispute would be with the user named, over behavior unbecoming .... etc. Nevertheless, I get only one chance to be wrong about that! I'm not about to dive in with no support. --Abd 23:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Aqib Show[edit]

Stop help Aqib show to raise up, please and stop putting block on Aaqib pages. Mabuabsdd--Mabuabsdd 12:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Good grief. Getting yourself unblocked is easy, as long as you keep it simple and brief. --SB_Johnny talk 23:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Every two minutes, someone dies of AIDS. As long as any edit that would reduced this unprecedented carnage is reverted, getting unblocked serves no logical purpose. --KBlott 11:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
KBlott, I can understand your sense of urgency. That sense may lead you astray. The Wikipedia article may or may not be so important. That's not really the issue. The issue is what is the most effective behavior. What if your passionate actions cause you to be less effective rather than more? First things first. Get yourself unblocked, and connect with a community. You are trying to do alone what requires society, more than one. As an SPA, isolated, you are dead meat, if there is the kind of cabal or single biased superuser you have thought. However, even as an SPA, you could do much, if you know the real limits and don't cross them. It is not that the limits are sacrosanct. They don't reverse a single life necessity. But get help! You started here. I'll help you, and SBJ may as well. Are you ready to proceed with some self-discipline? --Abd 12:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Depends, SBJ. I don't think you've been faced with a cabal of around two dozen editors, including about a half-dozen admins, gunning for you. I have, and I'm still allowed to edit Wikipedia. Yes, unblock requests *must* be brief. The one I suggested is brief enough. It could be briefer, but could actually waste the time of the reviewing administrator, compared to what I wrote, if it is too brief. I believe that KBlott should establish that he thought he wasn't violating sock policy, should make the sock argument moot, and should make moot any need for a block to prevent disruption, and that's why the stuff about consulting. If KBlott makes that request, and it's denied, there are then grounds to appeal to ArbComm, a block that is, prima facie, abusive. ArbComm is still a toss-up.
Mostly I haven't bothered with unblock requests, if the block is short. You want to see how I handle unblock here, you can look at my Talk page history. I'll put some diffs later. Don't be confused by later discussion aimed at making block circumstances and policy issues clear, with what's part of a unblock request. A wall of text as an unblock request is practically guaranteed to fail. I've seen plenty of them! I've never seen it work, not once. --Abd 23:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Arguing about CU actions and policies and/or shouting about "abuse" will not be helpful. --SB_Johnny talk 15:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Nor will writing walls of text be helpful. I recommend writing Haiku, Abd. You might get a better response. Moulton 17:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Moulton, so now you are the third person to say "no walls of text," but saying it as if you were the first. There were no walls of text here. You want to see true walls of text, I can point to some. --Abd 20:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • SBJ, are you suggesting a disagreement with me, or do you recognize that you are simply confirming, briefly, what I wrote? If the latter, thanks. I'd appreciate a clarification of your intention. --Abd 20:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Haiku Example for Abd[edit]

I recommend you
Write brief Haiku — You might get
A better response.

For what purpose and better than what?
Explain in nineteen syllables please.
--Abd 20:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


There is no Mu, no non-Mu. Who is knocking at this door? --Abd 14:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Quoth the Raven, “Clever!”

More? </Center>


Because I added my way!AAAAH! You crazy person. User:Mabuabsdd, GGG--Mabuabsdd 12:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't say that I understand. But, anyway, thanks for the compliment. I try. :-) I enjoy when you start to talk with me, so that we can work and play together. Have a great day! Thanks, your crazy friend, Abd. --Abd 14:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Don`t play dum![edit]

Do not be lying because I`m fed up with you, Ascoboo/User:Mabuabdsdd--Ascoboo 15:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you ate too much at snack time. Lying, Ascoboo/Mabuabdsdd, I am not. Have a great day! --Abd 18:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


Hi Abd

I`m sorry for being such a jerk, I should of has know that you were so kind to me, Mabuabsdd--Mabuabsdd 13:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC) .P.S. You can reply to me

If we could meet in person, there would be smiles. But we can't, so I'll reply on your Talk page. --Abd 13:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I can reply to something new. But please don`t meet me in person. You can ask me a question or send me a message. --Mabuabsdd

No, we won't meet in person, and I don't want personal contact details. We can talk here. Thanks for replying. I did write on your Talk page. --Abd 15:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


@assalamu^walakum^warahumon^warabakatoo. Are you a Muslim, Abd, Mabuabsdd--Mabuabsdd 15:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course I am, dodo-head! ... wa raHmatullAhi wa barakAtuh. ^Abd ul-raHmAn Lomax accepted Islam in about 1970. --Abd 15:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay I really don`t get watch your saying but I know your such a good friend. Did you know A muslim should be a good person, because then if you be bad. When you die. Your going to the fire of hell, but If your good. I`ll chat with you and when you die, you will go to paradise, --Mabuabsdd

Well, where we go is up to Allah, and the Prophet was reported as saying that a person could do the deeds of the fire, and be within an arm's length of the fire, and do the deeds of the garden, and go to the garden, and a person could be within an arm's length of the garden, then do the deeds of the fire, and go to the fire.
I'm not your Judge, Aaqib, and you are not my Judge, and the name I was using before Abd ul-Rahman was Daniel, which means, "God is my Judge."
"Dodo-head" means "Stupid!" among friends, right? At least my kids would understand that. Being "muslim" protects us only if we actually surrender to God's guidance, and we know that guidance in our hearts. If we don't have the intention in our hearts, we will not understand the Book.
I hope for the garden and I fear the fire, but I trust in God, and the name that we call God doesn't matter, it's not about his name, but about his Reality. --Abd 20:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Good Friends![edit]

Oh It`s nice to talk with you but I have a question

Are you a good person?

You can e-mail on my talk page or on your User talk!

Goodbye. And also I think I have a message for you.

I'll check. As to "am I a good person," I'll say, "inshaa'a llAh." I try. I don't always succeed, I make mistakes, and I try to learn from them.
And you? --Abd 20:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


Can you please unblock User:Mabuabsdd! Can you please. --Jmququ44

FYI. --SB_Johnny talk 13:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
What a waste of checkuser time! There is a pile of *obvious* socks, these are, as I hope you would know, one or more elementary school kids. I've been encouraging Mabuabsdd to settle down to one account or, at least, to openly identify them all, and to not create accounts to avoid a block, but this is probably a seven-year-old! It takes time to communicate. It may be two steps forward, one back. Or even two back. Thanks for the heads up, SBJ.
Wow! I've looked. Global lock. A tad severe. TCNSV. Not good. --Abd 14:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Aaqib, and others, please do not create any more accounts, and if an account is blocked, please be patient, I'm trying to deal with this. --Abd 14:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


Have I know a question

Chat with me your new friend, --Draubb. I can ask you can tell me something. --Draubb

What would you like to know? --Abd 14:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please tell how you became a administrator of Wikiversity, --Draubb

  • You'll be sorry you asked. —Moulton 15:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Moulton, someone must have peed in your coffee this morning (do you have a cat?), throw it out and get something better. --Abd 15:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not an administrator at this time. I was one for about two months, two different times. Wikiversity policy may be changing, but the present way is that any existing administrator (we call them "custodians") may "mentor" any other user. When the agreement has been made, a bureaucrat will make the mentored user a custodian. It's easy, but it requires convincing an administrator that you would make a good custodian. My guess is that if you keep learning, and are careful about what you do, that you could become an administrator. There is no age limit, but the job requires understanding how the Wikiversity community works and how to help people to cooperate.
If you are not an administrator and you want to do something that requires an administrator, you can do it, it just takes finding an administrator to do it. For example, recently, I've requested deletion of some unneeded pages. I placed a speedy deletion tag on the pages with my reason, and an administrator quickly deleted them, because my reason was clear and correct. If someone else disagreed they can do several things. They can remove the tag if they see it before the page is deleted, or they can ask the administrator to undelete the page.
When pages are deleted, they are not gone, they are only hidden. In one case yesterday, I requested that the deletion itself be hidden, because there was a real name of a minor child in the page name. Most deleted pages, though, can be seen in the deletion log. I've been trying to protect everything from Maybeury elementary by moving it to user space. As you can see from what's happening with global locks, there are people who don't want stuff from kids on the wikis. I can explain all that if you need it.
Anything can be fixed, but please be patient. It takes time to get busy stewards to pay attention and fix stuff.
Does that answer your question? If anything I say is too complicated, and you need a little more explanation, maybe a little simpler, just ask. Your friend, --Abd 15:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


Hi Abd. I think we're making some progress with reforming Community Review to make it more useful and approachable. I've created a "resolutions" subpage in the interests of adopting the things we might agree upon, and leaving the things we still need to discuss for later. My hope is that by getting these reforms through we will be able to pursue further reforms, since that's pretty much what CRs should do.

With that in mind, please comment on Wikiversity:Community Review/CR process discussion/Resolutions.

I'm leaving this note because you've already commented. If you comment on nothing else, please let your opinion be clear on using the sitenotice (part of resolution #4). --SB_Johnny talk 23:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

my comments[edit]

Re: my comments [13] - I sincerely thank you for giving me some space [14] to allow Moulton to explain his perspective. Based on more than a couple of comments from the community (that they would like to see a good faith effort to resolve concerns/issues/disputes before involving the wider community [15]) I felt that I should try a different approach, and see how it works out. It may be that input from the broader community is desirable, for example to discuss or clarify policy, but we won't know that until he has had an opportunity to state his views. Again, thanks. --mikeu talk 19:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, Mike. I agree with taking a different approach, though, I wonder, are you aware of how long and how hard I tried to do exactly that, working with Moulton to allow him to make positive contributions even while he was blocked? I was not happy with your comment that implied that I'm seeking to have him blocked and banned. Can you look at what I'd actually written on his Talk page and see the difference? If you can recognize it, an apology would be nice!
Rather, I'm stating the obvious. If a user continues to violate an important policy, and especially one that can bring down very negative consequences for Wikiversity, which already has serious problems as to reputation at meta, we must either act or allow others to act, as they will. I spent a great deal of time with Moulton on the issue of outing. He remained defiant, never budging from his position, and angry about everything I did to interfere with it.
There is a fundamental difference in philosophy, I believe. Wikis suffer from certain structural defects, in general. These lead to problems, and it can look like the problems are the result of some user or faction of users. That's an error, a huge one.
Moulton blames factions, though I think he is also aware of the structural defects, but he blames the structural defects on the factions. In fact, however, those defects are the "state of nature," what we have in human society if we have not moved beyond this with intelligent structure, the default structure creates roles, which people will then fill. He's angry, I'd expect, that these Awful Persons wrecked Wikipedia. And so he wants to expose them.
I've seen similar attitudes from him off-wiki. Problems with Cold fusion are the result of deluded scientists, not of poor scientific process overall (true pathological science doesn't last, because the underpinnings are quickly exposed as artifact, definitively, as with N-rays and Polywater, which never happened with cold fusion). Once Moulton has an idea, he doesn't let go and move on, that's become abundantly clear to me.
But he still writes some really funny Atrocious Song Parodies. And he makes occasionally trenchant comments. And he has, in fact, helped me to develop Cold fusion, if only by acting as a foil. --Abd 19:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Fyi, I removed my comment [16] Feel free to insert a note linking to the diff, or ask me if you'd like me to do that... --mikeu talk 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
If what you are stating is so "obvious" - why is there even a need to state it? Really... my note was just a routine notification informing him of a custodian action that I took on a page that he had created and a request that he discuss it with me. If uninvolved parties were to jump in every time this happens it would create a contentious and chaotic environment in which to resolve issues. --mikeu talk 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I'm "uninvolved," since I've worked on this issue for many months with Moulton. However, thanks for removing your comment. I removed my response to it. I consider your request to me to bug off "reasonable," within your discretion, which is why I reduced my comment to a reference to history.
At to a need to state the obvious, it's not obvious to some, sometimes. Indeed, sometimes a user is "warned," but with nice-nice language, "would you please consider refraining from blah blah," and ... that's not a warning, it's a piece of advice or a request. A warning can be quite civil and polite, but it must also be clear about intended consequences of disregard, unless it's going to be followed by a real warning that does provide consequences. As I've mentioned many times, ideally, warnings are issued by someone neutral, and "final warnings" by someone with the power to act. Sometimes we need to do things that are short of ideal. --Abd 20:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

How's it going, Mu301?[edit]

The "outing" theme is a red herring. The use of real names has a purpose, I've inferred, in an attempt to shame and humiliate, which is offensive. However, the same fundamental problem would exist without those names. If there is to be academic study of wiki process on Wikiversity, there must be ethical guidelines, and those guidelines should be developed regardless of the particular persons involved at one time or another.

Barry makes a point about academic authorship, but, of course, editing a wiki is not "academic authorship." He has points about the history, but making those points on Wikiversity, absent guidelines, will invite, again, intervention, just as before.

Barry also has a point about his user page, his "authorship." If the page is offensive, it should be blanked, at least, not altered. Discussion can then continue with reference to history. And if it's truly beyond the pale, it can be deleted, but a custodian doing this should have a firm policy basis, or expectation of consensus.

Given that we have not a guideline on "wiki studies," involving personal and non-neutral descriptions of editorial behavior at other wikis, we should not allow this kind of work. I have serious criticisms of editors at Wikipedia re Cold fusion but this is not the place to document that. I can examine the article here and point out problems, I may even point to some specific changes in Wikipedia history, but to turn that into an indictment of a specific editor would be way beyond the pale. If I need to do that, I can do it on Wikipedia, as an RfAr filing (about my only option), or I can document it at netknowledge.org, as I've started to do in some cases.

We can do wiki studies, but we need to develop the guidelines. Allowing Barry to force the issue with his pages, we should not. --Abd 20:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


[17] reduced to avoid arguments out of respect for Bduke's feelings.

Eh? Your Talk page, you can do what you like, but "Bduke's feelings"? What about that would offend Bduke? It addresses him, but doesn't attack him. I don't understand, seriously. Bduke, if you see this, can you explain? --Abd 18:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Bduke has stated on my talk page he finds reading all these arguments pretty depressing. I want my talk page to be a safe and argument free zone, out of concern that Bduke may find the situation at Wikiversity more depressing and could stop trying to express his concerns, if arguments begin appearing on my talk page. Some of the views you have previously expressed have been disagreed with before. You have also disagreed before with some of the views expressed in response to your comments. This is how arguments can get started and how the same arguments are likely to be repeated.
I have moved this discussion to your talk page, where you may feel free to disagree with my position, or my interpretation of how Bduke may feel. -- darklama  19:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah. Philosophical difference. Darklama, we do not reduce disruption by pretending it doesn't exist. Avoiding mention of controversy is, in fact, that pretense. Rather, Bduke is responding as will be normal for many; seeing controversy, he assumes -- my guess -- that all parties are equally responsible, and that if any one of them (one of two, usually) would just simmer down, everything would be fine. I've seen this response for almost 25 years on on-line communities. It is usually accurate. But not always, and the exceptions can be killers. When the community shies away from conflict, with a "pox on all your houses" response, real conflict with deep causes can be allowed to simmer indefinitely, and often the wrong persons get excluded from the community, particularly sane users who simply give up, realizing that it's not worth the hassle. --Abd 20:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC) This comment was separated from its continuation below by the interspersed comment from Bduke. --Abd 21:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no hurt feelings, but I do object to being patronized by you. "assuming all parties are equally responsible", "25 years experience", "you know better and this is an exception". Well no it is not. I do not think all parties are equally responsible, but I do think responsibility is shared. I also think that you are doing nothing to resolve the issues. You are just making the whole thing worse, so, yes, you should just simmer down - shut up for a while in fact. This does mean that Octava is not a problem here. He clearly is. Wikiversity is not a good place to be and I am going to delay doing more work here until the issue is sorted out. Otherwise I would probably be just wasting my time. I think you should take this as the view of an ordinary wikiversian just walking in off the street. --Bduke 03:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
BDuke, you haven't understood what I wrote just above, much less the rest of what's been happening. Yes. You have expressed the view of an "ordinary Wikiversitan just walking in off the street." Thanks for sharing, but do you think I'm surprised by that information, as part of the range of responses Wikiversitans would and do have?
How about doing one of two things: read some of the history, look back to the origins of disputes, check the evidence that's been given in various places, and put off coming to conclusions until you have done that, or, alternatively, simply watch, on-going, and see what develops. Above, I was making a general comment about what I've seen over 25 years. What have you seen over the same period? How is it "patronizing" to note my experience? The phenomenon I was describing, I've seen many times. Did I claim that this was what you were doing? I'd posited that as a possibility, for sure, that's why I said it, but you are very free to tell me otherwise, and you did, but only a little. You still show little grasp of the situation. By the way, you hacked my comment up with your response. I'll add a sig to fix it. --Abd 21:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I have read the history and very tiresome it is. I have read far more of your extensive writings than I really want to. I stand by what I said. You are not helping. The sheer bulk of your contributions inflames the issues. I of course intended to say "This does NOT mean that Octava is not a problem here. He clearly is.". I do not think there were too many on-line communities 25 years ago, but I have another 25 years before that of computer use. So to assume that I have less experience than you is patronizing. Apologies for mucking up your sig. --Bduke 23:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I've now reviewed your contributions history here, Bduke. I did not say that you had less experience than I, nor did I assume it. However, "computer use" is not at all the experience that would be relevant to what I was talking about. Zero. Rather, the relevant experience is in consensus organizations, plus standard parliamentary process, and then in on-line moderation and facilitation. And I don't expect to convince you. You don't have the background and you don't have the inclination. You are part of the problem, Bduke, even though you imagine that you have held yourself "above" it. You stayed away when the community needed help. And you still stand outside and judge. You have a little more than 100 contributions to Wikiversity, starting in 2006, but you almost completely stopped in 2008. You are basically a Wikipedian, I don't think you have a sense of the importance and promise of Wikiversity. I arrived here, substantially, in 2010, when I saw the problems recur, and worked to clean up the mess, including getting Thekohser unblocked, while working to avoid "cross-wiki problems," helping to solidify the wideness of scope that befits Wikiversity, that is consistent with academic freedom, and I have 3800 edits here, plus a pile of edits to deleted articles, adding speedy tags for uncontroversial deletions, and administrative actions, cleaning up, that won't show up in edit count. I've worked hard to improve Wikiversity, in many ways, and you've seen only the controversies. Typical for someone like you.
Stay off of my talk page, please, you are not welcome here, unless you actually want to collaborate on making Wikiversity function better. Let me know if you decide to do that. --Abd 03:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. It is your talk page. I am afraid that people like you with an over-strong sense of their own importance irritate me. I'll leave you alone. --Bduke 21:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
It is not necessary that everyone "confront" abuse. But it is essential that, somehow, the community insure that abuse is identified and stopped. That means, generally, establishing clear and effective dispute resolution process that actually seeks and finds consensus, when that's possible, or that -- when necessary -- identifies individuals as causing abuse and requires them to stop. The last option is a last resort, in fact, and is easily subject to misidentification if those making the decisions are averse to careful investigation and just want to Get It Over With.
During my desysop process, I think there was some level of opinion that I was the cause of the disruption, "on a rampage" with the tools. Eventually, we will look at this and it will be seen how little I used tools, and how carefully and selectively. But I understand that it would appear this way to those who were not following the developments, didn't read the evidence, etc. And it has not been presented to the community yet, not in a clear and simple, coherent way. And that's fine for now. I don't need tools, though I do see "virtual damage" being done because I don't have them. Work that others must perform, noncontroversial work, which was the vast majority of my custodial work. --Abd 20:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I realize that disruption doesn't go away by pretending it doesn't exist. However having a safe place free of disruption can make coping with disruption elsewhere easier. People need to be able to have relief from stressful situations every now and again or they can burn out. Ignoring problems indefinitely and never disengaging even for a bit are both unhealthy things for people to do. -- darklama  21:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. That's why I agree that you are sovereign over your Talk page, you may ask me not to comment there, either in general or specifically, as in this case. It's fine with me. It's your call, just as it's my call what I allow on my own User talk page. --Abd 21:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Notice of an amended resolution[edit]

Hi Abd. I'd like to make sure that you're aware of an amended version of a CR resolution you commented upon. Please let the community know if you're satisfied with the text of the new resolution.

On a personal note, please have a gander at my scratch page, and let me know your thoughts on that! --SB_Johnny talk 23:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


Because I mean at my talk page of your temps of administrating please can you get my message, Nice-, --Draubb


No! No the real cartoon name is name Aqib, --Draubb

There is a cartoon? Can you tell me about it? --Abd 13:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Aqib Aze page storie , --Draubb

Ah, that! Great, Draubb! I always enjoy reading your stories. Which story do you like best?

have a happy day. --Abd 18:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

My favorite is Los Angeles - Team Kansas Wizards, remember the time that Aqib say. "Throw that mud cliff ball" that`s funny. --Draubb

That reads like a dream, Galaxy vs. Wizards, do you like writing about your dreams? I believe you play soccer, yes? My kids play soccer, my seven-year-old girl is very small, but very fast and very focused, when she wants to do something, nobody can stop her. I think you might be like that. --Abd 15:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, There a page called List of president of Maybeury Elementary School and soccer--Draubb

Glad to hear from you, Draubb. You had not edited for a few days, I was worried might have happened to you. Have a great day! --Abd 15:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


Thank you for your kind welcome. I've lost interest in cold fusion because of the ratio of neutrons to recoverable power, and have since been studying 11B + p fusion, such as is described at http://focusfusion.org, http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com, and being discussed at http://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums -- I became interested in aneutronic forms of fusion (of which boron-11+p is the most efficient) after attending Vince Teofilo's January 20, 2011 presentation at Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center. Please let me know your thoughts. James Salsman 03:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you tell me how the neutron issue, which was obvious from 1989-1990, has to do with your loss of interest? Pons-Fleischmann CF doesn't generate any significant neutrons, and that any are found at all is only a sign that some kind of process is taking place, with some rare branch or side-reaction. The lack of neutrons is, in fact, very good news about CF, because it means that, if the reaction can be made stable and reliable, it won't produce hazardous radiation. So I really don't understand your comment.
as to p + boron-11, certainly that's interesting, a hot fusion reaction without neutrons. However, scaling up hot fusion reactions is pretty tough. That one solves the problem of radiation transmuting everything in sight, but not the extreme stability problems that are the main reasons why hot fusion has been such a boondoggle. Might work fine for propulsion, an application where cost isn't necessarily a big issue. But it's of low interest to me. I can set up, I believe, following a clear protocol, a cold fusion reaction in my apartment, with no risk, and I should be able to observe the effects of a few neutrons. That's interesting to me. Fun. --Abd 20:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The Russians were saying there were enough neutrons in some forms to treat nuclear waste. I'm interested in minimizing atomic transmutations. James Salsman 10:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No, i.e., not what the Russians are saying. If I'm correct, you are referring to the work of Vyosotskii. That is LENR. Mechanism unknown, biologically managed, but not neutrons, unless Widom-Larsen is correct, which is highly unlikely. Normal Pons-Flieschmann effect produces helium, transmutation are far down the scale, and radioactive isotopes seem rare to missing. Storms has some proto-theory about why only stable isotopes are produced.... But transmutation is a tiny detail with P-F LENR. Fuel, deuterium, ash is helium, and there is little or no detectable radiation. If this works, i.e., if it can be made practical, it could be the safest energy production method, or, to be fair, up there with solar. --Abd 14:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop[edit]

Please stop editwarring on Wikiversity:Request custodian action. There is a request, and custodians are responding. Don't disturb due process. Guido den Broeder 20:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look for custodian response for continuing. Given the chance, however, I'll ask you. There are two parties revert warring, with one side supported by another editor, at least roughly. I have discussed my action, detailing my reasons in Talk, and those reasons support what others have written, all but Moulton (and JWS on IRC). What response would you recommend? You have requested I stop. That's not a warning, it's a request. What would you do if I continued? What would you do if the other editor continued? Inquiring minds want to know. Custodians are standing by. --Abd 20:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Guido, your request above was misleading. There was only one response by a custodian, and it was not to the most important parts of the situation, in fact, it was only to the image of Gaddafi, a trivial matter. You, instead, made a controversial edit. You did restore the full discussion, but probably the optimal response was to support the move of the discussion to the Colloquium. What you did left in place a Request for custodian action that was not really a request for custodian action, but it removed a real request for custodian action, mine. That's now fixed. I removed the Colloquium discussion instead. If Moulton wants to have his fun at RCA, where it will be seen by fewer editors, that's fine with me, as long as the custodians don't mind! --Abd 23:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I recommend no response. You are not involved and so far all your responses have been disruptive. Guido den Broeder 23:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm very involved in the history of Moulton on Wikiversity; I worked toward his unblock. Unfortunately, that process was not complete and he was prematurely unblocked. And your involvement, justifying your response, since you seem to think that generally working for clean and clear process on Wikiversity, my objective, is not enough, is? What is your interest on what is on the Request custodian action page? --Abd 00:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Support staff[edit]

There are other custodians around who might take a look if you sent them a (brief!) note via email... --SB_Johnny talk 12:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, Mu301 was a bit incautious[edit]


Thanks, Mike. Inadvertent, I'm sure. I did, ah, take measures, I've been around the block, so to speak, and, purely in thought, have wondered what I'd do if truly banned. For 3 months on Wikipedia, piffle! Not worth it. On Wikipedia, I studied what dedicated puppet masters did.... I won't describe it. --Abd 16:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you are in a bit of a Double Bind, Abd. Are you familiar with the concept and its relevance to the current Zeitgeist? —Caprice 15:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in a bind, Moulton/Caprice. That concept and its application is one of your insanities. Sure, someone who drinks the Kool-Aid is caught, because there are conflicting messages, on wikis and in society. You assume that because I support Rule of Law that I don't support IAR. Those are complementary principles, both are necessary, and the real law is always transcendent and unattached. --Abd 15:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Is that your hypothesis about Moulton's assumptions? —Caprice 15:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


"why WAS's attitude is very much part of the problem. That's not a personal attack, lots of users feel that way."

If a lot of people have an attitude; then why name it after me? Do you know what the attitude is that is behind the words; or perhaps the words merely reflect a conclusion that differs from yours even though we share same or similar attitudes? Isn't it a personal attack to verbalize your attack on a conclusion as an attack on what my attitude is according to you. (No where did I describe an "attitude.) Lastly, a personal attack does not cease from being a personal attack based on the numbers of people who are attacked for personal reasons. ("Yo, I ain't prejudiced: I shot both Jews and blacks.") I know you mean well; and an apology is not needed at all; but please do pay attention to nuance - it is nuance that makes an attack personal in the first place. I bet that next time you make your words better reflect what I have no doubt is your lack of intent to personally attack. -- WAS 4.250 22:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, WAS. Your comment represented the attitude, regardless of what your personal attitude is. I'll look at my comment and see if I can refactor it. I'm clearly "attacking" -- disagreeing with -- the position, the idea that there is something intrinsically wrong with "instruction creep," when, in fact, a real problem would be what might be called "rigid policy creep," where policy becomes so convoluted that only some who obsessively studies the "policy tome" can avoid getting slapped.
When I wrote that I wasn't attacking you, I meant it. I consider your comment as being "within reason."
On Wikipedia, I saw how clearer guidelines were resisted, when some simple clarifications would have avoided piles of AfDs that were (1) useless, but (2) occasionally successful, thus creating more disruption and conflict, because a pages that was really identical in how verification of notability was handled -- identical -- came up with different results just because of low participation from interested editors, the usual handful of deletionists, and a closing admin who just look at da votes. But fifteen other AfDs nominated at the same time by the same nominator, on the same arguments and principles, closed as keep. So I tried to fix the guideline, with a simple clarification. The reason for the exception to normal rules was obvious. International organization (highly notable) recognition of a national-scope organization, which actually fit other notability guidelines that people weren't noticing, because of an apparent inconsistency. "Instruction creep."
Wikipedia still has no clear policy regarding administrative recusal. The policy, as it is, as I recall, doesn't allow for sufficient exceptions, so it's routinely disregarded. And attempts to clarify it, again, "instruction creep." To fix the policy, there needs to be procedure for what to do if an admin sees a problem and there is no time to discuss it, but would have some recusal requirement (recusal is really about appearance of bias, not necessarily the reality of bias, and WP generally doesn't understand this.) IAR requires them to go ahead and act, and a sensible recusal policy will, then, guide them as to what to do should they act in a way that can create an appearance of bias. First of all, they shouldn't do this except in an emergency, and there is no way to specify "emergency" without running into massive instruction creep that is, in the end, impossible. So you don't. "Emergency" means pretty much whatever an admin thinks it means, but, then, the admin is required to take certain steps. Basically, to consult. After acting! (no emergency, no action in the presence of a recusal requirement.) There are other aspects to it, also, such has having an "emergency block template" that is used, that explains that this is just one admin's opinion, and that links to good advice as to how to appeal, and, since the guidelines would require consultation, links to where this consultation takes place. Etc. Basically, in short, good process, fair process, and easily perceived as fair, as long as the whole admin corps isn't radically biased. If it is, probably a good idea to go somewhere else! --Abd 23:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
As near as I can tell, you seem to believe that one can legislate "clue". No amount of detail in the rules can substitute for clue. WAS 4.250 09:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
No, I definitely don't believe that. You can legislate some level of order. However, I don't think that "clue" actually exists. People may be familiar with a community and how it works, and they may be other than familiar. We call this "clue," but, in fact, there is no specific body of knowledge called clue. And then someone who has apparently been "clued in" strangely does something contrary to "clue." Turns out there was no real agreement, and that was discovered because someone did something contrary to the assumed consensus. Or was it contrary to consensus? What group of opinions is "clue" and what is "not-clue"?
There is a standard answer: the majority is "clue," the minority is "not-clue." And in sane organizations it's possible to discover quickly if one's opinion is in the minority or not. Of course, they vote. They have meetings, they propose motions, and if nobody seconds the motion, they get some clue very quickly and easily. If it's seconded, and someone objects to the motion, and a vote on the objection is immediately held, they get come clue: either them or the two who objected (I think an objection to the consideration of a motion must be seconded.) Clue is rapidly manifest, so that it can be shared. Wikipedia is, shall we say, a bit different from that. It has an apparently simple goal, and people read that and believe they understand it. In fact, they are clueless. Some of these people contribute for years without ever running into strong evidence that they are clueless. Some have become administrators, even, and still have little more than a naive concept of what makes an adhocracy work, the unwritten rules. And, as you know, I could go on and on.
In the Notability guideline example I gave, there were people with clue. I was one, actually. That is, I had an idea -- and evidence -- as to how the community actually would decide in a situation. The guideline that I tried to edit said something different. The nominators of AfDs that would mostly go down as keep believed the guideline. The guideline was *generally* true. Result: waste of time for a set of editors. There might be 200 articles involved in this. So, twenty of them got AfD'd. Someone notices an edit to one of these articles in recent changes, looks at the article, sees that, why, this isn't notable! Look, only one source. For shame! Speedy tag. Sometimes they got speedied, but someone would return it, because there was an obvious source, and there was a list, and missing articles showed up like a sore thumb. So it would go to AfD, and the nominator usually looked around and found some more articles, and would nominate them all. But the articles were all different, some had additional sources, some had sources that were very difficult to find, and they would be in other languages than English. There was a very simple principle to establish notability for the entire set of articles, and it is what would normally carry the day in the AfDs when enough attention arrived. The principle did not open the barn door to hosts of truly non-notable organizations. It was documented elsewhere, but not necessarily where people would look.
(The issue was national member organizations of the IARU, the International Amateur Radio Union. These organizations are recognized by the IARU, only one member organization per nation. These are national-scope organizations, recognized by a nighly notable international organization, and definitely notable within their nation. They have governmental recognition. Articles being nominated for deletion included some of these that had been in existence for eighty years or more. They would have been noted and described in amateur radio publications, such as QST, but the older sources were not easily accessible. These organizations often get local press when they aid in emergencies, natural disasters, etc. But that material is very difficult to find. My position was that the recognition by the IARU, and the organization's web site -- they all have web sites -- was enough for a *stub.* Verifiable information. Notability established by formal international recognition, and national scope.
Another example would be Red-Cross affiliated national organizations. These are mentioned, frequently, in media, but the mentions are mostly not about the organization itself, but something it did. Off-hand mention doesn't establish notability. The deletionists cited "rules" that appeared to indicate non-notability. (Deletionists *tend* to be more rule-bound than the average editor. This is not an attack on deletionists! It's just that deletion reflects, typically, a sense of order and of relatively tight standards for inclusion. "IDONTLIKEIT" may be related to this, but not necessarily tightly.)
With time, sources for more information would be uncovered, I was sure. In a couple of cases I was able to find such information. But, structurally, an article that exists is more likely to attract sourced information than one that doesn't exist. New articles are much more frequently created by people who simply know about something and they see that it's missing. Here, because of what is legitimately intrinsic notability (notability from a simple standard), the project becomes more efficient if the individual national member organizations have, at least, stubs. The stubs can have a template that solicits sourced additional information. But, hey, "instruction creep." If, in fact, you want the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, "anyone" is going to need some decent instructions, or they will mostly be wasting their time.
The harm of an explanatory sentence in the guideline? Doing what guidelines are supposed to do, document actual practice? Not *legislate* it. Legislation changes actual practice, typically. Guidelines should explain it, educate. The argument you have given, WAS, somewhat stands against the possibility of education as a formal process, at all. "Clue" is social knowledge. It can't be taught?
Yes, there is a way in which it cannot be taught. Societies operate on hidden rules, and sometimes it's effectively against the rules to discuss the rules. See w:User:Abd/Rule 0. Wikipedia is largely such a society. Now, is that what we want for Wikiversity? --Abd 15:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


Please do not block me --Draubb

You aren't going to be blocked, I believe, unless your account is used to add real names of you or your school friends.
I can't block you, but I did request it yesterday, but only as a temporary measure. The request was declined by a custodian (administrator) who is also trying to be kind and patient.

Please respond on your user page. I did not ask for the block to hurt you, but it looked from what you wrote there that you might need help, that someone had your password and used it to add those names.

Please just tell me, on your user page, what happened. What did you mean by a security problem? What were you saying or asking about Privacy Policy?
Just try to tell me, please. I'm not angry or upset, just a little worried, because there are people who don't like allowing people your age to edit at all, and if things like that happen, they may be able to stop it.
Wikiversity is a much friendlier wiki than the others linked with Wikipedia. There is a place for you here, where you can work and play and learn. I've found some friends at simple.wikipedia who also understand what I've been trying to do with you, which is to protect you and your writing and help you to develop cooperation with everyone else, good things.
That's why I ask you to
  • For now, stay away from mainspace, keep what you write in your user space. (You've been doing well with this, thanks.)
  • Don't create more accounts. It confuses people and they try to get rid of what confuses them, and, additional accounts make for more work.
  • If you are blocked, but can still edit your User talk page, ask to be unblocked. I'm watching it, so, if I see something there, I can help, and I will usually see it within a day. Be patient.
  • If you are completely blocked and can't edit the user talk page, you may have been globally locked. Again, I can help. In this case you will have to edit anonymously to tell me. If you only post to my talk page -- here -- then I will, again, help, and posts to this page send me an email notice, I'll see it sooner. Supposedly, you should not edit at all -- even by IP, anonymous -- if you are blocked, but if all you do is edit here, I can probably prevent any bad things from happening.
  • Please do not use the real names of anyone under 18 years of age, including yourself.
  • If you want to use your own real name, there is a way, but we will need written permission from your parents. If you want to try that, let me know and, again, I'll help. You could even have an account with your real name.
  • Please don't edit the other wikis, like simple.wikipedia, until you have a "sponsor" there, someone who is a regular and trusted user, who can make sure that what you do is okay with the people there, someone like me, who will help you to do what is okay and advise you what not to do.
What we are doing may be making a way for hundreds or thousands of kids like you to be a part of the wiki community. So please be careful, and Be Happy! This could be a very good thing. --Abd 14:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


In the interest of transparency, I am restating my comment that was lost as part of deletion that you requested.

Please do not insult people that you disagree with or believe to make no sense in the future. 1 You should try to find common ground, and not escalate disputes. One insult can lead to another and before you know it you've lost sight of why discussion began in the first place and have trouble finding a way back. People may see insults before you recognize the error and redact them. People may also see them when they review the edit history of a page. In either case, redaction may already be too late to avoid escalation. If you often make mistakes that look like a good idea at the time and regret doing later, I suggest you wait and refrain from editing whenever you feel the way you felt when you read TeleComNasSprVen' comment. Thank you. -- darklama  15:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed that edit within two minutes of making it. Yes, people may see such edits before redaction, however, I don't believe that happened in this case. I agree that if I did this often, I should be much more careful before editing. Know of any other examples, Darklama? Thanks for supporting civility policy. We need more of this, not less. --Abd 15:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
For others, the page that was deleted was a copy of this removed material, plus the comment by Darklama. With the transcluded page link, I've also removed an additional comment by Moulton as can be seen in [18]. I have responded to the issue raised by Moulton on scholarly ethics at Wikiversity_talk:Scholarly_ethics#Extreme_statement_in_the_present_draft_of_this_proposed_policy. That is not a response, necessarily, to specific questions raised in the removed material. One clear question at a time, I might answer! --Abd 16:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


You were asking for it, and you got it. Despite copious amounts of feedback from the community asking you to stop, you have insisted on marching to your own drummer and engaged in endless revert wars. You have also over the past few months engaged in campaigns against particular people that have also disrupted community growth and discussion.

You are of course welcome to negotiate this block with other custodians, but I strongly encourage you to wait it out and witness the failure of the wiki to explode without the benefit of your unilateral custodianship. --SB_Johnny talk 21:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, SBJ. Were you aware that I'd stated, a number of times, I would stop what I was doing upon a warning from any custodian, i.e., "stop or you will be blocked." Standard serious warning. Therefore the block was not necessary, and as not necessary, was contrary to WV:BLOCK. That you are involved to your gills is another point that will come out in later process, and that you've done this before, with others, as well. That's not relevant to the unblock request I'll place below.
Now I know why the damage of 2008 was so tenacious. It wasn't Jimbo and it wasn't Moulton, it was certain entrenched elements in the Wikiversity community. That was a surprise to me, in fact. It explains why JWSchmidt was so inconsolable. He knew, and he saw that, in the end, aspects of the underlying problem had not been addressed, he just didn't know how to address it.
The wiki won't necessarily explode, it will simply continue to die. --Abd 21:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


I do not believe that blocks should be lifted merely due to procedural error, but some aspects of procedure are important. I was not warned that I'd be blocked if I continued the Moulton block enforcement reversions. I'd reverted Moulton, off and on, for more than six months, and prior concerns had been opposite, that I had restored Moulton content when he was supposedly banned. There was no closed community consensus, just the objection of two or three users, on confused or confusing grounds. Receiving "feedback" from two or three users, and disagreeing with it, is not disruptive editing, particularly when stopping me from continuing would be trivial, easier and less disruptive than blocking. The block was, for this reason alone, contrary to WV:BLOCK. It was not the minimal effective action.

I asked the critics at RCA to demonstrate consensus, i.e., with a closed discussion. The standing discussion had reached no conclusion. There was shallow participation. There was no close.

  • SBJ asked a question that wasn't precisely defined. I reported revert warring by IP to RCA. Is that proper or improper? Proper actions can sometimes cause "disruption," i.e., disagreement.
  • Darklama made neutral comments. The block being enforced was one placed by Darklama. If my actions in enforcement of that block were improper, Darklama had a special right to indicate it. I'd have stopped immediately.
  • Moulton, editing in evasion of his block, but not being reverted in his edits to RCA, made various comments, unclear in implications. In any case, does the opinion of a blocked editor as to enforcement of his block count? It should be considered, my opinion, and that's part of why I was allowing Moulton to edit RCA unreverted. But it shouldn't be controlling.
  • TeleComNasSprVen is opposed to almost anything I've done, anywhere.
  • Abd -- me -- commented, of course, favoring what I was doing.

This is a community consensus? Looks to me like 2:1, with a custodian part of the 2 deciding to enforce it with a block, instead of taking personal responsibility. (WAS 4.250 made a post hoc comment, elsewhere, comparing me to a "terrorist." Great.)

I was available to stop reverting upon a warning from any custodian, and I'd repeatedly announced that. My block was by a highly involved custodian, apparently annoyed that I'd forced his hand, in a way. "You were asking for it." No, I wasn't. I asked for guidance, clear and specific and authoritative guidance, by a custodian taking responsibility for the consequences. Procedurally, I asked for either a closed community discussion, which, as involving enforcement of a block (of Moulton!) should require a custodian, or an ad hoc decision by a custodian (i.e., warning to me). From my block log, you can see, no prior confirmed blocks. No lack of response to authoritative warnings. Given the history, if what I was doing was improper, which has not been established, a warning was in order, for sure, not a block. And a first block would be 24 hours, but it would not have been necessary. I would have then arranged community discussion of the issue, if it wasn't already happening. SBJ knew that I was considering a Community Review on his behavior, already, as well He acted to prevent that. --Abd 22:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion by WAS 4.250[edit]

Abd, at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action, you stated "To stop me, a custodian may simply warn me that I will be blocked if I continue, with a clear specification of the prohibited behavior." (emphasis added) which I parodied as "If any custodian wants to stop me, all they have to do is whatever I say; Moulton won't obey me, so I need someone else to play with. Specify what I did wrong to my satisfaction. If Moulton can keep playing until he believes he did something wrong, then so can I." "with a clear specification of the prohibited behavior" is a loophole you added that is big enough to drive a truck through. That promise with its loophole is worthless. WAS 4.250 22:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

How could I promise to respect a restriction that wasn't clear? However, restrictions can be "live." That is, a custodian could request that I agree to any restriction, which could include ongoing supervision of some kind, whatever the custodian thinks necessary, and if I don't think I can respect it, I won't agree with it. In my opinion, an unblocking custodian is in a strong position, for a custodian may always undo his or her own action, no reason is necessary. There is no real loophole, unless one believes in mindless wiki-literalism. If a custodian unblocked on condition that I not do X, and then I do something that leads the custodian to regret the unblock, and I'm reblocked with the same term, I could sputter all day that "I didn't do X," and I'd still be blocked, and I couldn't ding the admin for it. Not fairly or effectively, anyway! --Abd 22:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Taboo Or Not Taboo? That Is the Question.[edit]

It occurs to me that the prohibited behavior is a wretched excess of annoyance. —Albatross 23:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what it looks like to me. Someone annoys you? Block him. SBJ has been annoyed with me for a long time. I confronted what he's been doing, made it very clear. Here, Moulton, it's really funny. You are revert warring with me. Most admins would think of blocking both revert warriors, I thought someone might do that. No, he blocks me. Not you. Why? Beats me! I'm "disruptive" and you aren't? Aren't you a bit insulted, Moulton? Here you try to be as annoying as possible, make a huge project of it, and ... you get no respect. You are as annoying as an ant under the carpet. --Abd 03:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

One question[edit]

  • "Moulton. one question is permitted, ask it. If you get blocked for revert warring here, tough. You could always ask by email." —Abd

My one question is: "What hath Abd wrought?"

Moulton 16:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This question was answered at [19]. --Abd 17:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Here is a more specific follow-up question. "Why didst thou create that which thou has wrought here (on Wikiversity)?" —Moulton 16:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I misread this question there, apparently, and answered as if it had been "What...," giving my contributions special page. Why is a question about meaning, and that question, as well, isn't specific. I don't have time to essay an answer today. After 24 hours, maybe. I generally choose non-compliance with bullying, matter of personal policy. (See [20].) --Abd 17:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sauce for the gander[edit]


  • I was blocked while revert warring with Moulton, a blocked editor theoretically barred from posting at all,
  • Because the IP I was -- openly -- revert warring with was not blocked,
  • Because there has been no custodial response to my unblock template,
  • Because the block itself violated general wiki practice and the proposed WV:BLOCK policy,
  • Because administrators should treat users with evenness and fairness as to use of tools, and
  • Because a warning would have sufficed to stop my revert warring, and I'd been explicit about that,
  • My block is contrary to policy.

Therefore I will, under the present conditions, ignore it. This will be the first time I have evaded a block. It will be, I suspect, educational for me to explore being a blocked editor, and possibly helpful to demonstrate what I consider proper behavior for such. I may self-revert, depending on the advice I get from the community.

I am technically unable to edit, as Abd, outside of this Talk page. My email access using this account has been blocked, without any abuse of email, showing of abuse, or any explanation at all, therefore I will edit by IP, as needed. Defacto practice has been to allow such editing, even for a blocked user, even when the blocked user is being disruptive and revert warring.

Whatever is permitted one user on a wiki, is permitted all, or that user has been granted a privilege and power over others. Administrative tools are a privilege and an example of a special grant. Blocks are a withdrawal of a general privilege, and general practice has been to only allow blocks when necessary for the function of the community.

However, the Wikiversity community has broken down to the extent that the wiki is not safe. Administrative coverage is frequently absent, the WV IRV channel frequently has no custodian logged in, or requests for custodian attention there go unanswered. The revert warring mentioned above was due to lack of response to WV:RCA requests for enforcement of policy.

I will remain, as I was before, responsive to warnings from any custodian willing to take responsibility for prohibiting the continuation of any action of mine. Advice is not a warning. Expressions of annoyance by human beings are not necessarily warnings, human beings are not dogs; in organized society, with common language, we have more developed mechanisms for providing information about intended action. "I'm annoyed" does not indicate any intended action. Nor does "you are not being helpful."

If, due to my perception of biased use or warning of use of tools, I decide to reject the warning of a custodian, I will respond here with such a rejection, and will wait a minimum of 24 hours, before taking any action contrary to the warning, allowing time for another custodian to confirm the warning (in which case I will comply pending further notice). I do not intend to revert war with Moulton -- or anyone else -- as a blocked editor (i.e., I will not repeat the ostensible reason for my block). That would be violating the principle I have advanced that IP editors should not revert war, period, that it's controversial enough that they be permitted any edits at all, and given that asserting an edit puts the edit into history for review, even if it's been reverted, insistent reversion by IP clearly becomes pure disruption, an attempt to bully. -- 15:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

--Confirming the above as my edit, and the IP as my current IP, until further notice. --Abd 15:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for advice[edit]

Both as an administrator and as a user assisting blocked or banned editors, here and on Wikipedia, I have successfully demonstrated self-reversion. The cleanest example was with w:User:PJHaseldine, who had been topic-banned. PJH was an expert on the Lockerbie TWA bombing, and like many experts, had gotten into conflict on WP. I'd supported the ban. However, I suggested to PJH that if he had an edit to make affecting an article under the ban, that he go ahead and make the edit, but, in the edit summary, add, "will self-revert per ban," and then self-revert. He did so, and the result was that an editor who had asked for the ban, reviewed the edit and accepted it. Thus self-reversion created a situation encouraging cooperation between two editors who had been at loggerheads. That was the design, and it worked.

Self-reversion had been proposed and approved by an arbitrator with respect to a topic ban of another editor. That editor, however, angrily rejected it. Why should he revert a perfectly good edit? He was definitely not interested in the answer: to keep ban enforcement simply by showing cooperation with the ban, even while still following w:WP:IAR to improve the project. He was not interested because complicating ban enforcement was his goal! He ended up being site-banned, and that just happened again, this time probably it's final.

Now that I'm blocked, I'm under an effective, temporary, site-ban. I know of only one cogent argument against self-reversion. If it's for a good edit, that is then restored, it has complicated the history of a page. My own view is that this complication is minor and easily understood with the "will revert per ban" messages.

However, because, at present, IP edits by a blocked editor are routinely being tolerated, I will not self-revert. However, I will consider advice here from any editor. In particular, any custodian may, presumably to simplify block enforcement, require that I self-revert when editing in noncompliance with a block. -- 15:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Page protection?[edit]

Let me know if you'd like semi-protection, and for how long. --SB_Johnny talk 16:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. For the duration of my block. Or if that's too complicated, 30 days or a month. --Abd 17:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Set it for a month, you're of course welcome to request that be undone any time :-). --SB_Johnny talk 17:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, SBJ, you are obviously useful for something. Let's see if we can build on the precedent. :-) --Abd 17:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Heh. I have my moments ;-). Enjoy the peaceful userpage! --SB_Johnny talk 17:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Unblock deal[edit]

Here's the deal I'd offer, all of which apply for 6 months (at least):

  1. No reverting of anything whatsoever aside from vandalism from random vandals.
  2. No posting to RCA for any reason whatsoever, and no posting on the talk pages of custodians to complain about somebody.
  3. No dogging people who you think are thinking/acting/speaking contrary to the mission and/or preference of the community.

I offer that deal because you seem to have missed the message people were trying to give you at the CR, namely that we're uncomfortable with your approach to problems that might arise. It's not that I don't think there's something you can contribute, I just think your potential contributions need to be balanced by some effort to listen on your part. --SB_Johnny talk 21:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Noting that I've proposed similar unblock conditions on the Wikiversity:Request custodian action page. TeleComNasSprVen 21:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the offer, SBJ. No, I do not accept that deal. In fact, it's far enough from what I'd be willing to accept that I'm not making any counter-offers. One question. Who were the "people" trying to give me a "message," and what was the message? You are implying, I think, that this was some large number of people. Setting aside Moulton, looks to me like it was about two people, one of whom I don't particularly consider a Wikiversitan, and the other was you, so you blocked to enforce your personal opinion, and you blocked contrary to policy. You aren't a newcomer, I assume you understand the implications. --Abd 02:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • There were only two users who clearly opposed what I was doing, SBJ, you and TCNSV. You blocked me for "repeated disruptive editing of pages," in the block log, and because I was "engaged in endless revert wars." You also made vaguer charges, but I very much doubt you'd have blocked without warning like that except for the "revert wars," and certainly there was a revert war. Revert wars are not caused by a single revert. I did not revert war with any user except Moulton, and that only happened because of a lack of custodial supervision. There were several ways you could have responded to the situation, SBJ, and you are now doing one of them, though more drastically and more quickly than I'd have recommended.
  • You or any sysop could have semiprotected the pages involved, far sooner. You could have blocked the IP, only gradually extending the ranges as needed, then relaxing them as feasible, i.e., when Moulton stopped escalating.
  • You could have stopped me by simply formally warning me on my talk page, being as specific or as general as needed. Or, of course, you could have short-blocked me, and from my block record, a block of longer than 24 hours would be odd. Instead, you blocked for a month. Your goal of preventing me from influencing WV policy has been obvious for a long time, and the above conditions demonstrate that goal. My postings to RCA were based on situations that obviously needed custodian attention. There was, in fact, custodial response to those situations, resolving some of them at least temporarily.
  • I recommend that you lift the block immediately, as the least disruptive course of action you could take. You may set any conditions you choose, even including conditions like those you set above, and, I've made it very clear, what you do, you may undo, without increasing a recusal failure. Want a 1RR restriction, no exceptions? Specify it! With such a restriction, I'd have reverted Moulton's contributions once. I normally follow 1RR anyway! The case of Moulton revert warring by IP, to avoid the revert-and-review process that I've been proposing, was an exception, done for obvious reasons.
  • "No posting to RCA for any reason whatsoever, and no posting on the talk pages of custodians to complain about somebody." Pardon me, SBJ, but that is a dumb idea. RCA and talk page postings are transparent. So what would I do? IRC, for starters, and private email, now made necessary by the restriction. You'd simply be decreasing transparency. And, of course, I presume I could use the talk pages of custodians on other wikis, right?
  • Just as, now having email blocked here, I could use the interface on other wikis to email any user here with an account, say, on Wikipedia. Your email restriction on the block was very, very unusual, and made without any justification. You've been flopping around like a fish out of water, SBJ. --Abd 20:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Lol... your short answer was better, and made me think, so I'll respond to that (since I've been bouncing it around all day, and I tend to think quite a bit before I type): I'd like to have you unblocked and around the place because I think you'd have some valuable input on the 3 (3!) community reviews going on right now. My conditions were very black and white ways of preventing you from revving up "teh dramahs", because you do tend to do that and I think it's unhelpful. I'd be interested in your offer that would meet that goal.<p>Try to bear in mind that my (admittedly draconian) offer was made in light of the fact that no other custodian had even posted on your page since the block (which strikes me as unfair, but that's probably just a result of there being very few custodians around). <p>I am not self-appointing myself to be your tutor, not volunteering to be your tutor, and I don't have any particular theories of mind about your ability to learn. In fact I'm pretty sure you have some things to teach me, and I hope you'll see me the same way down the road. <p>I also think I deserve at least a bit of credit for going above and beyond the call of duty in a few situations, but I'd rather you thought about that rather than be vocal about it ;-). --SB_Johnny talk 21:43, 14 March 2011
Sorry if this is too long, but I truly don't have time to make it shorter. No rush. Read it at leisure, or you can even ask me to summarize.
You get credit for some of what you have done and you get discredit for some. Like a lot of people, eh?
The situation was that
  • There are only three local custodians doing anything as far as I can see. Often on IRC, there is not one logged in. RCA requests were going without any answer.
  • The three custodians seemed strangely paralyzed in dealing with the situation, with various expressions showing that.
  • Violations of policy were clear.
  • I therefore acted outside of norms, assuming what I've claimed is the right of all users: quasi-administrative powers. The revert warring against an IP which was revert warring was a form of "citizen's arrest." The intention was to call attention, to, more or less, force some kind of action.
  • As you know, if the lack of attention here had continued, there would have been steward action. I find it interesting that your first IP block in this matter, this time, was shortly after a steward blocked. Encouraging local admins to act before stewards intervened was a large part of my purpose.
  • If there was a better way to do this, I damn sure don't know what it would have been!
So, tell me, what exactly did I do wrong? Then make not doing that a condition of my unblock. Thanks for acknowledging that your initial conditions were draconian. I will accept, provisionally and temporarily, restrictions that are more than I think appropriate. That's the meaning of my offer in my unblock template. If you had unblocked and had set those draconian conditions, I would have stated I had no intention of restricting myself, but neither would I violate the restrictions without necessity. I would not have demanded to be blocked! If I did violate a restriction, it would have been up to you to decide if any action of mine was a violation worth reblocking me for.
If I think it important, and if your restrictions are more than I want to allow to continue, I'll follow community process to have them considered.
I have a general understanding of what makes wikis work, routinely, and it is not, per se, consensus process. Consensus process cannot handle emergent situations, it takes way too long. That's why custodians have discretion. When there are only two or three custodians, all of them now "involved" in a situation, the situation can become unstable, especially if the guidelines are not clear about how the tools should be used.
The moves you and Mu301 have made to improve CR process have been welcome and needed, but we also need to (1) bring in more custodians, particularly those who understand or who are willing to respect the unique Wikiversity approach, which is very different from the other WMF wikis, and (2) develop more efficient process for establishing community consensus when controversial issues arise.
Thanks for considering this. --Abd 22:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(←)There's a few dots you're not connecting, that maybe aren't so easy to connect as an "outsider". A few points to consider:

  1. The core of broadly active custodians is only 3 people now, and none of us is particularly happy about being left holding the bag.
  2. You in particular have made a lot of demands of us lately, and frankly it came to the point where it was looking like we were being asked (several times per day) to cater to the needs of one person.
  3. I know you like to make fun of me for my "tl;dr allergy", but you do tend to make long posts, and over the past couple months you've made more than a few long posts on more than a few different pages each day. Given that we have other things going on in our days, it was really difficult to do the "due diligence" and figure out whether we should see things your way or see things the other person's way. I hope you see what I'm saying on this point! We had no way of knowing if you were being a chicken little, a boy crying wolf, or something else entirely without investing more time, and none of us had the time to invest (rinse, lather, repeat).
  4. I personally don't want to be in charge of looking over your contribs to see if there's something "of concern", so I'm only offering very black and white options (which more or less entails being draconian).
  5. I don't think anyone (well, maybe Moulton and JWS, but they're like "Mikey" of that cereal commercial of yore) thinks you don't have good ideas. It's just hard sometimes to winnow them (no offense, and sorry for being a broken recor*broken recor*broken recor*...).

'k? --SB_Johnny talk 23:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, SBJ. Responding point by point.
  1. I understand. Did you think I didn't?
  2. I asked you to be clear, that was the only "demand." You may not realize this, but Darklama had declined to act wrt Moulton because you appeared to be "in charge." You had unblocked, based on an agreement. DL didn't want to interfere with that. So I asked! Indeed, DL, on IRC, encouraged me to ask! "Needs of one person." I think that if you look back, I was asking that reasonable steps be taken wrt the needs of the wiki. Once I was blocked, and a steward intervened, you started responding. I had presented simple and clear evidence that action was required, both on your talk page and at RCA. I don't request action with walls of text. Those were simple and clear, and policy-based (or obviously necessary).
  3. I make long posts and I make short posts. The "action requests" were short posts. Moulton, at RCA, would frequently take brief, clear requests, and cover them up and obscure them with massive text and tendentious, diverting argument. I tried to interdict this, no support. I presented evidence at each step, SBJ, and you didn't need to take anything on my say-so, i.e., "your way or the other person's way." It was not complicated. We can, if you like, look at each action, what I requested, what the available evidence was, etc., and if my block stands and is not lifted as not having been necessary, i.e., if it carries a continuing implication that I did something wrong, then I'll want to insure that the examination happens. I know how to do this, I did it successfully on Wikipedia. True dispute resolution.
  4. You can do what you can do. You have an opportunity now to do better than you did before. You may take it or not. As to any kind of ban enforcement, however, it is not necessary to check contributions unless someone complains. If it is not offending anyone, it probably is not disruptive!
  5. Patience, SBJ. I'm not necessarily easy to understand on the first reading. --Abd 01:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And about self-reversion[edit]

Discussion was continued with [21]. SBJ, if you'd like to restore any of that, here, to respond, you may. Thanks. --Abd 01:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Not sure I understand the question. --SB_Johnny talk 15:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
What question? The link refers to an extended discussion, not a question. That you even read it is fully optional, your choice. Is anything unclear about that? --Abd 15:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And you blocked email because?[edit]

Why did you block email, SBJ? Usually there is some really strong reason for an action like that. --Abd 01:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No idea why the email was blocked... should work now. --SB_Johnny talk 15:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see that you changed the block settings, and it reads "e-mail blocked," you must have set that option when you blocked. I just tried to open up an email edit window, failed with blocked user message as expected from block log.
However, why are you maintaining the block now? I've been editing IP, and not any differently, particularly, than were I unblocked, except maybe I'm not doing the routine maintenance that I usually do. How about unblocking? You could just unblock experimentally, see what happens. To remind you, I've written many times that an unblocking admin may always reblock (at least if there are no intervening blocks/unblocks by another admin), it's a basic wiki principle that one may always undo one's own actions. The only thing I'd caution you about would be reblocking to extend the original term. If there is a recusal requirement -- there is -- that shouldn't be done except in an emergency. Clear?
To be clear about one more thing. If unblocked, I will not, during the one month original block term, act as a firm enforcer of the Moulton block, i.e., by reverting his contributions more than once. If he reverts, presumably before the IP is blocked, I will not revert it again. Okay? (Beyond that term, I don't know what will happen. I'm only promising this wrt to the period until then, and I hope that something better is set up by then, perhaps we will discuss the policy.) --Abd 15:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather you just didn't revert people at all, unless somebody else does first... a lot of the things you were reverting weren't actually causing problems. Reverting Moulton in particular might be a moot point though, since the rangeblocks seem to be having some effect now. The issue is more that your approach to "enforcement" activities in general tends to raise the drama level as opposed to lowering it (I'm sure that's not your intent, but it's true).
BTW, does your email work now? I tried resetting again a few hours ago, but then the phone rang and didn't have time to post a note. --SB_Johnny talk 20:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
After a bit of thought, I don't really see how this block is "preventing disruption/drama" now that Moulton isn't around, so I'm lifting it. However: if you proceed to move on to another "project" (as in: picking another Moulton or Ottava to go to war with), don't be surprised if I intervene. --SB_Johnny talk 23:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the unblock.
However, I didn't pick Ottava to go to war with, neither Moulton. Yes, I "revert warred" with Moulton, but on strong policy grounds. As to Ottava, he came after me, definitely, I was not pursuing him at all. Have you forgotten so quickly? And now, reading what was just added to my talk page, I suddenly had a Bad Thought. I did some checking, and find that the thought is possible, even likely. What to do about it, I don't know yet. Yes, it would be, once again, trouble following me. From Wikipedia, from years ago. I'll be careful. --Abd 01:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Abd, I was not at all implying that you threw the first stone (you didn't). You just tend to escalate things by throwing bigger stones back. --SB_Johnny talk 22:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps you are right, or perhaps dealing rationally with a familiar situation looks like "throwing bigger stones" to someone who hasn't seen what I've seen. If you could be specific about a "bigger stone," perhaps I could agree, or perhaps I could explain. I have no opinion of my own perfection. --Abd 23:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I meant the "warnings" and "declarations of emergencies". Those tend to ramp things up rather than doing the reverse ;-). --SB_Johnny talk 17:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
"Warnings" were notices of intention to block, upon a contingency. While you may think that they amp things up, it's better to warn than to block without warning, you should know that. In the proposed Wikiversity:Recusal, for a custodian with a conflict of interest to act with tools requires a declaration of emergency. That merely means that the custodian considers that substantial harm will accrue if the custodian waits for a neutral custodian to appear -- if even one exists! It does not mean that the sky is falling. You'd prefer a different word? In any case, the conditions for action under a recusal requirement involve a declaration of harm from waiting, proper notice including warning and opportunity for the community to stop the action, or, at least, to be notified of it, openly and clearly, not merely from an unblock template or later complaint. I expect we will eventually have to look at all this, for the benefit of future generations. --Abd 17:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if different wording would help. It's more that you were sort of doing a "play-by-play" on noticeboards and elsewhere, which can make the tensions a lot higher. OTOH, at least some of the custodians (certainly me) don't like jumping in when it seems to be two doing the tango. Sometimes it's hard to tell, when 2 people are running around, who is lighting the fires and who is putting them out (especially when the tangoing pair seem to have a lot more time to ivest than the custodians do). --SB_Johnny talk 17:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Participation offer[edit]

I stipulate that you were blocked because your comments and actions suggest you do not understand everyone is an equal at Wikiversity and what role consensus plays in resolving differences among equals. I am willing to unblock you on a few conditions, however I first want you to look at the included consensus diagram and explain: a) what it means to you, and b) on reflection what steps you skipped. -- darklama  18:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Darklama, I appreciate what you seem to be trying to do, and I follow and use that process, routinely (though often with very substantial delay). I do not understand, however, how that chart applies to what I was doing, what I was blocked for. You have implied that I "skipped" steps. However, the process image assumes a context. This is a process for finding consensus, and it assumes legitimate participation by at least two users. When there is illegitimate participation (i.e., by a blocked user), this process does not apply, not formally. Consensus process may still proceed, even with blocked users, but may be handled differently.
If I had reverted any legitimate users, then I'd be skipping a step, specifically :"find a reasonable compromise" before again making changes. I was only reverting a blocked user, on some pages. Wherever a legitimate user reverted me, I did not continue. Thus I was not skipping any step of the cycle. What was skipped was "were further changes made." Whenever they were, I stopped, because I was, with respect to the change, "agreeing with the changes." I'm not aware of any exceptions.
Let's be very specific. Moulton would make an edit, evading his block. I would revert it with an edit summary revert blocked user Moulton. Sometimes I specifically invited reversion by any editor willing to accept the edit. But that was always understood and implied. The reverts were not based on harmful content, only on editor status. My edits returned pages to the condition they'd have had if Moulton had not evaded his block.
In a couple of cases, my revert was reverted, thus being an example of a "further change." I accepted this change in every case, as I recall. What I did not accept was reversion by the blocked user himself. Two editors, on RCA, argued that it was harmful for me to complicate the page history by my additional reversions. I rejected that argument. But the editors had, with respect to the actual revert warring at least two options: they could accept the edit of Moulton by reverting me, or they could ask for custodian action to stop me from doing what I was doing. Any custodian could have stopped me merely by warning me on my talk page that continued reversion would result in a block. Two individuals do not constitute a community consensus, there was (and is) no consensus on what I was doing.
I did not reject any warning from a custodian. I was specifically looking for a custodian who would take responsibility for stopping what I considered legitimate block enforcement. That's why I did not accept mere disagreement on RCA, which should be dicta, toothless. (But I'd still have respected a clear community consensus there.)
I disagree vigorously with the implied claim that I do not understand that everyone is equal at Wikiversity, except in these respects:
  • blocked users are not equal in rights to unblocked users
  • in a few cases users with low contributions are not equal to users with substantial contributions (this is only listed to be complete, it doesn't apply to my actions, specifically), and
  • ordinary users are not equal in rights to custodians.
The special rights of custodians are, in theory, restricted to service of the community, but, in practice, custodians are what are often called "superusers." Special rights.
Everything that I did was something that any registered user could do. IP editors could do it, in theory. In practice, not, at least not ordinarily, for reasons I'd be happy to explain. What are you talking about, Darklama? Please show me how the process describes applies to my page editing. --Abd 20:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
What I am trying to do is to have you demonstrate your understanding of the consensus process in general by explaining it to me. Where in the consensus process do you believe an argument fits? Where in the consensus process do you believe a rejection of an argument fits? What do you believe is the next step in the consensus process after one person rejects the argument of another person? I have other questions, but I want to wait until you've answered those questions first before continuing. -- darklama  21:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Darklama, while I can completely see why you're taking this approach, I'm a bit uncomfortable about turning an unblock request into an educational dialog (particularly given recent events). I think this is a good conversation to have, but maybe not when one of you is "under duress", so to speak. --SB_Johnny talk 23:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
My approach was to educate myself prior to offering conditions and possibility negotiating terms for unblocking, and to do so via his talk page in the interest of transparency. -- darklama  00:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
While it was a bit disconcerting, I felt this was within Darklama's prerogative as a custodian considering unblock. I responded without regard for the fact I was blocked, except, of course, where I referred to the block and block conditions. "Educational dialog" is good, as long as it's voluntary, and I do trust Darklama's intentions. I also understand SBJ's concern. This could have been abusive. Darklama, you may continue the discussion if you wish. I reverted a comment added by TCNSV, because it did not seem to be to be educational in intention or form. There were possibly some reasonable questions that could be derived from that removed comment, though, so feel free to ask them if you choose. --Abd 19:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Good to hear, Abd, and I wasn't really questioning darklamas intentions at all. I just think there's been a bit too much "teaching of the resistant student" going on lately, and I hope we can move away from that. --SB_Johnny talk 22:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Arguments may be made in the first through third stages, but clearly fit in the fourth stage. Rejection of argument may occur in the second stage. A first-stage action is not a rejection of argument, per se.
The next step in the process after someone rejects an argument depends on the nature of the disagreement, and where the rejection takes place. Your questions, Darklama, don't specify what we are talking about, we seem to be talking about "arguments" as if they were actions. They are not actions, they are expressions of opinion. Actions may or may not be justified by arguments. That an argument opposes an action is quite an abstract judgment. Perhaps the person taking the action accepts the argument, generally, but considers that different reasons justify the action in context.
This is why the consensus process described does not begin with arguments. It begins with an action and then an action (by another editor) considered to be possibly contrary. It does not begin like this: Editor 1 changes text to A. Editor 2 writes "you shouldn't do that," but doesn't revert or change the text. Editor 2 has argued against the change but has not acted. The edit stands unless reverted. The consensus process begins with the reversion, with an apparent disagreement. If Editor 1 accepts the edit, done, we have what is considered "new consensus," i.e., consensus, for now, on the text.
If Editor 1 does not accept this, the editor does not revert -- that begins revert warring, if Editor 2 simply reverted -- but instead begins discussion, with the goal being an agreement.
All of this became very confusing because there was a second principle operating, that of a block. Can Editor 1, if blocked, initiate and participate in this process? Not on-wiki, at least not legitimately! With respect to the edits in question, I was Editor 1, and my original action was reverting an edit by a blocked editor, ipso facto. Not a content argument at all.
There were two editors who opined that this was causing harm. I disagreed. However, that disagreement was dicta, on both sides. The fact was that I took an action and it was not opposed by any registered editor, with opposition being expressed through reversion of my edit.
In several cases, my edit was reverted. I accepted those reversions, thus finding consensus, just like the chart shows. In one case, I asked the editor if the editor wanted to take responsibility for any further edits to that page by the blocked editor. The editor made an analogy with this, that I was a "terrorist." Now, Darklama, was that part of the BRD cycle, or was my attempt to discuss this part of the cycle? I was not obligated to ask about applying WAS 4.250's revert as a principle to other edits to the same page. But I did, because, Darklama, I do seek consensus.
So I find it ironic that I was blocked, for doing what the policies, guidelines, and general wiki practices allow and even require. That's why I'm not accepting the "draconian" restrictions suggested by SBJ. I was doing what was needed, in fact, and subsequent events demonstrated that. I'm not worried. It will all come out in the wash. --Abd 23:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Is your position than that an attempt to initiate discussion through a statement of opposition is not enough to require consensus? -- darklama  23:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "require consensus." Consensus is a goal, not exactly a requirement. Are you saying that if someone "attempts to initiate discussion through a statement of opposition" that it is obligatory to require finding consensus? Before doing what? In the BRD chart you put up, the initiation of discussion is not what requires consensus, or an attempt to reach consensus, but rather an editing dispute. If I edit a page to "A", and you think it should be "B," then if you write, "I disagree with the page being A," nothing happens. I'm not required to do a thing! If you then change the page to B, okay, you have discussed your change first, it's not a bald revert, but you could, quite possibly, do that even without discussion. Once. The recommendation in the process you describe is that I not revert back to A without seeking consensus.
I think you are trying to apply a guideline for consensus process, designed to apply to content decisions, per se, to behavioral matters. Ordinarily, editors are free to edit according to their best understanding. Editors who disagree with what another is doing, as a general matter (rather than as specific content actions), may voice that disagreement, but subjecting editors to a requirement that they only act when they have consensus would be highly limiting, and it would, it seems, set up a double standard. I don't see you, for example, waiting for consensus to act to support personal interpretation of policy, nor SBJ, nor about anyone. Rather, wikis use what I might call "very rough consensus," i.e., they prohibit revert warring and wheel-warring. Which then requires a position to have support in order to continue to be asserted. I.e, if we go through this A/B thing, I can't just set it back to A on my own (unless *maybe* I wait for some time with no progress toward consensus, I might try again....), but another user can. And then yet another user can revert that, not you. This gives a rough equivalent to majority rule, based on the ad hoc appearance of editors.
As a custodian you had the right to block. I'm saying that as a user I have a similar right, to revert. You do not repeatedly block the same user (except under narrow circumstances). I do not repeatedly revert the same edit (ordinarily). If I blanket revert an editor, this is similar to blocking the editor, but it requires continual action for me, one button push for you. And, if you'd notice, I didn't do that, until and unless the editor was blocked and was editing IP. I was supporting your block. For that reason, had you asked me to stop, I'd have stopped. But I'd wonder, then, what you were trying to accomplish with the block!
If the custodian supervision of Wikiversity were working, I might not have reverted Moulton more than once for each edit. Depends. Maybe not at all, maybe twice at the most: once with notice to custodians of a Moulton block evasion, and if he reverts, once again after IP has been blocked. I might not revert at all, if the edit level is low enough that reviewing the edits carefully is possible. One of the reasons I've settled on semi-automatic reversion is that there is no way to indicate acceptance of an edit if it hasn't been reverted.
I don't think you have understood why I'd revert all his contributions outside of pages where they were intrinsically less harmful, because, on those "permitted" pages they would be reviewed more carefully by custodians. Really, if he were cooperative, he'd self-revert if he's blocked. (I considered doing this, you can see above.) That, then, creates no emergency, no necessary review of his edits. If it were not necessary to review his edits, he shouldn't have been blocked! --Abd 02:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)