User talk:Mu301

"On résiste à l'invasion des armées; on ne résiste pas à l'invasion des idées." — Victor Hugo (discuss)

Visit my Learning blog and join in on the conversation.

Astronomy award

		The Original Barnstar
		For speedily reverting vandalism, and for being a super awesome editor in general! --AFriedman 00:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Thanks and a request

Thanks for this on the cold fusion RfD.

I added some comments after you posted that, not noticing your request. I have reverted myself. If you have time, please look at that and revert back in anything that looks okay, or let me know I can do it. -- or close the RfD as requested without prejudice, meaning it could be refiled later (presumably following your request). Otherwise it is likely to continue to attract more mess. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I just realized why you thought that study page was "checkuser-like." It's because the information was compiled -- copy-pasted -- from actual checkuser requests, mostly on Wikipedia, and so users are listed with the checkuser template. That's all. Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Sanctions: any attempts by you to create "case studies" or "investigations" of wiki contributor activity at en-wv are subject to a formal Review Board as described at Wikiversity:Review board. This includes sock puppets and anonymous editors discussed in any namespace. You must request permission before creating any such content here and this will be strictly enforced using revision deletion, page protection, and/or blocks. We have received numerous legitimate complaints about your activity over a long period of time. We expect any future activity on this site to adhere to the "high ethical standards" as described at Wikiversity:Research guidelines Please review your future contributions to ensure that they adhere to Wikiversity:Privacy policy. --mikeu ^talk 18:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

ːThanks, Mike, I appreciate the warning. I am not aware that I have violated privacy policy, though one external link in the study you deleted did originally have a name in the URL. That was immediately handled by Dave, and I fully cooperated with that -- and still have not mentioned the name in the meta study, nor have I linked to off-WMF material.

Can you give a specific example of any such recent "case studies" or "investigations" here? If I have a problem with SPAs appearing, may I request custodian attention on the page for that? May such requests document what I consider the problem? With an RfD, if I discover clear evidence of canvassing, may I disclose that?

ːAs to the "legitimate requests," is there any documentation of this, or is this a star chamber where I am sanctioned with no knowledge of who accused me, what I was accused of, and opportunity to respond. In any case, I have not been creating such studies on Wikiversity, the one that you found that you deleted had been blanked, merely to avoid attack on it here, which was clearly causing disruption, and it was moved to meta, because it was about cross-wiki LTA activity. I will, nevertheless, exercise extreme caution. I will look at the Review Board, and at Community Review as well. I will no longer be working to build content on Wikiversity, pending, I have better places to work in any case. Please think about making Wikiversity safe for scholars, from attack by those who come from outside. That is what that study here was about, SPA disruption, a long-term problem. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

We're not exactly inundated with SPAs or any other "threat" that urgently requires your assistance. If you see cross-wiki activity you can try posting at meta. Otherwise we have plenty of folks here with the tools and the trust of the community to handle whatever scarce inappropriate activity that occurs. Please take a break from this sort of activity here. This really gets to the core of my concern: you are using militaristic language like "from attack by those who come from outside" which creates an adversarial us against them environment. You literally categorize WMF participants as Friends and Enemies. These are not isolated instances. This permeates a lot of your on-wiki interactions and it is detrimental to a collegial learning environment.

I'm going to let your w:Star Chamber snark slide by without a brief incivility block despite the fact that the phrase is "synonymous with social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the power it wielded." You've been around long enough to know that admins are sometimes privy to sensitive personal information that could have real world consequences and that we are required by WMF policy to respect confidentiality where it is warranted. I will however share one quote from a private exchange: "Regarding Abd at Wikiversity... the participation his behavior draws certainly have a net negative effect on my experience." Please note that this is not from an anon or someone who is more active at Wikipedia. This is from a productive member of our local community. The implications of this statement trouble me more than any specific edit that you have made. People are our most valuable learning resource at Wikiversity. The consequences of your behavior are that participants are discouraged from contributing here. --mikeu ^talk 23:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)