User talk:Abd

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search

Draft ethics[edit]

See Wikiversity:Ethics for pages concerning illegal or physically dangerous activities. Is anything more needed? Leucosticte (discusscontribs) 17:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Because Leucosticte properly asked about this, the draft was reviewed and rejected as inadequate. Because the user was globally banned and unable to continue discussion, I adopted the page rather than seeing it deleted. The draft may be seen at permanent link. It was discussed at User talk:Abd/Ethics for pages concerning illegal or physically dangerous activities.
Leucosticte was a "disruptive user," but we work for the education of all users on Wikiversity, and Leucosticte was always responsive to warnings and corrections. The major disruption that occurred here arose because of others who attacked him based on off-wiki considerations and a related extreme response to his proposals or w:WP:Bold editing. Because he was watched, there was no significant danger here, and, long-term, there may be benefit. However, he was globally banned, January 17, 2015. One might notice that I suggested that if he continued, he'd be globally banned, it's on that Talk page.
Did he continue? No. He was banned together with a series of users, see the Global ban policy page.
The reason give in his block notice on meta was "'Consistent with the Terms of Use, this user has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing Wikimedia sites." The WMF Global bans are not consistent with the Terms of Use, which explicitly reserve global bans for the m:Global ban community process. Rather, they are, if proper, taken under general discretion. The WMF has refused to discuss any of the global bans; the most disruptive of the bans was that of Russavia, who was a very popular administrator on Commons. Fallout from that continues, a very active administrator and checkuser just resigned, LANCB, over community support for Russavia. Russavia continues to edit using open proxies. This was all predictable.
Leucosticte had continued to edit Wikipedia using new accounts. However, there was no tradition of global ban based on socking at a single wiki. Russavia had done this, and was certainly provocative. For example, he would place grossly uncivil text in his user agent string. That would only be visible to a checkuser. Hence, I'm sure, the checkuser who took on -- without community consensus -- enforcing the global ban on Commons was seeing grossly uncivil comments, and was prohibited by policy from revealing them. At the same time, he was seeing criticism from the community (while others criticised the critics, and it has been a huge mess there).
The global bans have been seen by many long-term users as an intrusion on local wiki autonomy. I saw this coming, years ago, with the ban of Poetlister, which only affected Wikiversity. That was, at least, a community ban, though there had been no prior tradition of allowing the global community to control a local wiki. The steward who closed that global ban discussion -- I asked -- considered that Wikiversity could exempt itself by allowing a known sock to edit here. The community here never developed consensus, but this is remarkable: when I found support for allowing that user to edit, on discussion, and unblocked, I was immediately reversed without discussion, and the two admins here supporting that position went to meta, and I was emergency desysopped. I had not wheel-warred. I had followed local policy. And the kicker: the sysop who had blocked had previously made it clear that it takes consensus to block, not consensus to unblock.
Apparently, if you don't like the banned user, it's okay to disregard policy. This was about Poetlister. At that point, the blocking sysop was very active on Wikipedia Review, and Poetlister was banned there, and any support for Poetlister was ridiculed as preposterous. Wikipedia Review -> Wikipediocracy, for the most part, and Poetlister is allowed to edit there. I'm not, I was banned for defending Wikipedia editors against scurrilous charges of violating child protection policy.
And the Wikipediocracy House Position on the global bans is that finally the WMF is doing something about These Horrible People. The last listed WMF global ban is of Meco. Wikipediocracy still hosts the attack page that probably led to his Wikipedia block, a block with no stated reason, just a note to consult ArbCom before unblocking. That is exactly what would be done if the Wikipediocracy page was believed. What's on that page? A set of facts -- they are facts -- combined with misleading implications from them. Meco was not a risk to children. He was not an advocate of "inappropriate adult-child relationships." So far, anyway, I've seen no evidence of it, and no evidence of that is on the Wikipediocracy blog page. But he had done something recently.
He had put up an image on Commons titled "Blurred child porn image." It was promptly deleted and apparently oversighted (so even administrators cannot see it.) Was this "child porn." No. I have seen what was apparently the source image, hosted where Meco said it was, he had put it on scribd. It had apparently been a child porn image, part of the official record of a trial in Norway. He blurred it so much that it was completely unrecognizable as anything. Had he created this image? Had he knowingly possessed it? Probably not. Meco is compulsively honest, that is part of his problem -- or our problem with him, he doesn't see it as a problem --, he's autistic, my opinion. He would agree, and has (I'm in direct communication with him, though it's difficult, he's homeless and uses a library for internet access.) The image was, from the evidence we have, from a CD seized in his home at the time, and it had been left there by a teenager. It apparently contained some ordinary pornography and some "child porn" a sometimes-misleading category. He calls it child porn, though, which simply means pornographic photography of a legally under-age subject.
He did not violate the Terms of use, almost certainly -- this image was not pornography at all --, and this lack of actual TOU violation is very likely with certain other globally banned users. So this is the serious problem: the WMF is losing the trust of the community. While many (and probably a very substantial majority) still trust the WMF, the more highly informed core is becoming suspicious that there are other agendas being followed than the goal of "empowering" the community, for which the WMF was founded.
Meco was promptly banned by the WMF upon the appearance of that Commons discussion. The is obviously based on it (and the discussion referred back to the old Wikipediocracy blog). Yet what was the offense? It appears to be "having 'child porn' in the name of a file upload," and then being accused of being a pedophile. (He's not a pedophile, but many are very sloppy about what they call "pedophilia.") The real offense, of more legitimate concern, would be creating disruption. People respond viscerally to "child protection" issues. This is a Sexual politics/Mirkin Phase 1 topic, which means that it may not even be possible to discuss it. The discussion here was over suicide, but the basic issue had been raised before, here over child protection issues. We can see the vehemence of response in history here, reviewing the block log of Leucosticte would show it. "Creating disruption" does not accuse the user of misbehavior, it's about how the wiki responds. One might call such a block the wiki equivalent of "protective custody." If a person's presence on the street will cause a riot, the police may prevent that presence, under some conditions. But it is not a crime to be disruptive like that. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


Can you take a look at Nuclear power/Thorium/Thorcon? It was deleted from Wikipedia as advertising / promotional. The only sources are the company promoting the technology. Perhaps it can be renamed (Thorium Energy) or moved to a subpage somewhere, or perhaps it's just promotional and should be deleted. But it seems closer to your area of expertise. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC) page moved --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I will investigate. I am familiar with thorium power, it's a known technology, but I don't know about the company yet. I would not suggest Thorium Energy as a resource, it's too specialized. I will look at what we have on nuclear fission or nuclear power. --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
As usual, our resource structure is a mess. We have Nuclear power greener but not Nuclear power. It is possible that the "greener" page should be a subpage of Controversies in Science. (In fact, likely all those pages listed on the Controversies page should be subpages of Controversies or of the more general topic. Cold fusion was academically called "The scientific fiasco of the century," and is still a huge mess, unresolved.
"Greener" It could also go under a new Nuclear power resource, that is a sufficiently broad topic. There are many forms of nuclear power, and w:Thorium fuel cycle is one.
w:Thorcon was speedy deleted. There is a protest on w:Talk:Thorcon from a long-term regular user. Don't know why he has not formally requested undeletion, it should be immediately granted if properly requested. The user may have a COI, it's possible, I'll communicate with him here. We allow COI users to edit, but COI must, by WMF policy, be disclosed. The user needs assistance, appears clueless how to proceed, image files uploaded on Wikipedia don't have proper licensing information. The images should be on Commons and permission should be confirmed through OTRS.
World Nuclear News could be reliable source. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • YesY Done Siphon06, I created a top-level stub, Nuclear power, a study stub below that, Nuclear power/Thorium, and this company page below that, as Nuclear power/Thorium/Thorcon. Because the content was apparently copied from Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia article may not be safe, I have blanked the page, then adding a reference to Wikipedia. If the Wikipedia article is deleted, then, we have content here that can be used. Meanwhile, that resource may be used for study and discussion of the topic, which are discouraged on Wikipedia. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you ever planning on requesting an unban at Wikipedia?[edit]

I honestly don't know the case very well but what I've seen (which is little) you didn't need to be blocked. --atcovi (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

What you can readily see is the tip of the iceberg. In the community ban discussion, there is an apparent cause. I had socked with a single undeclared sock, for a short time. None of it was disruptive, but ... that is considered a blockable offense. Normally, it would not result in a ban, but there was a long history here. ArbComm is involved. (That is part of what that sock demonstrated. Old policies and practices that would have led to a different result are not followed.) To understand the situation would take a lot of study. I'm certainly willing to discuss it. However, to be unbanned, I would need to request it from ArbComm, though there is an alternate path. I do not expect sympathy from ArbComm, though possibly from individual members. I saw the ArbComm members who would have opposed a ban picked off, one by one. The underground politics of Wikipedia is ugly. It doesn't affect most editors, so most editors won't believe it exists. Why that would violate policy!
The alternate path is that someone sets up an unban discussion on the Administrator's Noticeboard. My guess is that the faction behind the ban is still quite active and would react quickly. Even when I was unbanned and even when I was successful in confronting administrative abuse, discussions were going 2:1 Ban Abd even when what I had done was open-and-shut proper and they lost before ArbComm.
And why would I want to edit Wikipedia? What interested me most about Wikipedia was the process, I had seen the potential of such process for decades before. I know how it would work and how it could fail. Working in the content salt mines, wikignoming, great thing to do, and I did some of it for a time, just because I could. I do it on Wikiversity, sometimes. But it is not what really interests me. As to anything wiki, I'm quite happy with Wikiversity, where I can build resources and structure without fighting off hordes of Lilliputians who really don't care about the subject, or who have some old POV to push (plenty of those among Wikipedians "in good standing," including administrators. Who are welcome here.) We just don't need to fight here, there is no scarce space, no single page that has to be complete and neutral. And I can help out on, say, Wikiquote, where I was recently active because there was controversy that I knew how to handle. It worked. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
So, thanks for the thought. Maybe someday I will be invited. I'm not planning on holding my breath. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Huh, alright. No problem. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you help me with this essay at Wikibooks please?[edit] - I know you know all about how an interactive wiki works like. Maybe you can help me with this essay at Wikibooks? Thanks! --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Its me[edit]

I want you at en WP again. Your action plz + my service (u r "still" in my heart) Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 14:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You may ask questions about Wikipedia here, or you may email me. I am unable to directly edit Wikipedia, because I am banned there and have not appealed the ban. Nevertheless, I have been, on occasion, able to assist editors with handling Wikipedia process. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
It is my desire to appeal for lifting up ban. Do you allow me plz. (I think after one year appeal can be made easily). Can I initiate such a proposal?Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 21:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
You mean my ban. Why do you want me on en.WP? I would consider cooperating with such a request, but coming from a user with little experience, the chance of success is small. I'm quite happy with Wikiversity, and I worry that harm might come to you if you attempt such a thing. Simply being unbanned, by the way, would not be satisfactory. I would still be under the community ban on cold fusion, and the "MYOB ban" set up by ArbComm, as it came to be interpreted (not as it was formulated, I actually thought it was fine when it was first passed), made it impossible for me to do what I was good at. That MYOB ban was indefinite.
I'm not seeing value that is worth the energy. However, there are many possible projects that involve cooperation between Wikiversity and Wikipedia. There is no particular obstacle to these, so if you would like to help, you could. It might also be difficult, sometimes, but at least there would be a likely benefit. --Abd (discusscontribs) 13:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
If you are not keen for en-WP, its ok. However, I would request to opt “review” by ArbComm. Further more if you are sure that outcome has possibility in negative then turn down req/proposal. Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 19:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
If you would like to show me some proposal, you may. I did appeal to ArbComm, and, in fact, I was indef blocked during an appeal; I considered then that the general requirement to follow due process was exhausted, so I used the occasion to test a process that had worked for others who were banned. It actually worked, but not as well as it would have worked if recognized. Then, when block enforcement escalated to the point that it was temporarily a nuisance -- and it was causing collateral damage -- I created a regular sock, taking no precautions. I only made useful edits, within policy, except for block evasion. I wanted to see if there would be special enforcement, checkuser, without disruptive editing. There was. Basically, the old policies and guidelines were not followed. I have not edited Wikipedia except accidentally since. I'd found enough. That was documented here, by the way.
Let me ask you why you would want to see me unbanned. What purpose would it serve? My work is mostly here, though I'm active globally on occasion. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I don’t know what would be the result. I was planning to discuss the matter with an en-WP admin.
  • Answer to your questions: Simply I do not know. However, reply has already been given to you last year - that was “natural”. I think there is magnetism between persons that might cause attraction towards any segment of our social life. So I am patient of that gravitation. Sometime this gravitation becomes: desire, admire, jealousy, love, help, hate etc. Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 20:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
There should be no harm in discussion, unless you insist on something. Let me know where such a discussion takes place. Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC).
Ok. Please wait.
Please read this at and give your "Explicit view on expansion of universe". Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 14:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC) (to save religion dispute we may hold communications via e-mails)
It is recommended that a request for unblock by placing an unblock with reason for unblocking template on your talk page may please be done (by using Wikipedia unblock ticket system", see ). Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 10:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Nannadeem, I know how to request unblock. However, there is a community ban in place. So see w:Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Review_and_reversal_of_bans. If I were unblocked, which would not be, in itself, terribly difficult (basically, I was community banned for doing some editing by IP and a single sock, and the editing itself was nondisruptive, and, my narrow purpose accomplished, I have not deliberately socked for about four years. That story is on User:Abd/Wikipedia/List of self-reverted edits). However, I would still be under an indefinite ban, an ArbComm ban on intervention in matters where I am not already involved. (Call this the "no-neutral intervention ban," but it has been called the "MYOB" ban -- Mind Your Own Business --, and it's one of the more fascinating devices invented to make it impossible for me to work on Wikipedia doing what I'm good at. Never before and never since for anyone, AFAIK.) It would be work, and for what purpose? What would I want to do on Wikipedia that cannot be done, just as easily or more easily, by someone else?
However, I had been under the impression that I was still banned on cold fusion there. I'm not. I'd forgotten, that ban was only for a year and expired October 5, 2011. So there might be some useful work I could do there, with appropriate caution, even with the MYOB ban in place. I do know how to do this. I'll consider it. I still have email enabled on Wikipedia, and, for a community ban, the minimum action is emailing an admin. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do not take it ill and place your request without hesitation. Am telling you destination/Luck (Taqdeer in Urdu/Arabic): (1) Personal attempt (2) Tools to be applied (3) Random. You know in Physics three mistakes have value i.e. Personal, instrumental and random. If you believe in Taqdeer you must apply and do not scarify two objects for the sake of one (See rule Attempt + Result one pair Negative + Positive 2nd pair. Mutation of these Allele is Taqdeer). My prayers are with you.Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 18:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Today my first peer-reviewed paper has been released.[1]. It is part of a special section on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, in Current Science, and is referenced in the preface to the special section (p. 492 of the journal). Are we having fun yet? --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I am already impressed of you. It is your involvement in physics and interest with command. That is why I personally do not want to see you as blocked/banned. (My question for your personal views (expansion/expending) needing a response plz). My prayers to Almighty for your more n more success n dignity.Nannadeem (discusscontribs) 17:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it a good idea?[edit]

Is it a good idea to create Category:Images of Wikiversity in this Wiki? Thanks! Shustov (discusscontribs) 08:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC) moved from [2] --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please define the Category. What is the purpose? That is separate from the purpose of the images themselves that you are uploading. Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Should I move this page?[edit]

Should I move Thermodynamics practice quizzes to Engineering thermodynamics/Quizzes? I know the person who created Thermodynamics practice quizzes and even helped him do it; he won't mind. BTW: It has 4 subpages -- big enough to attempt a move-with-subpages but small enough to do it by hand if I botch it.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 16:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Definitely the original page is inappropriate. It's a supporting resource. My question would be if Engineering thermodynamics is the appropriate top level resource, or would it be Thermodynamics?
You will see these issues all over Wikiversity, because we never developed a clear and accepted organizational system. Gradually, we are cleaning it up.
First of all, your proposed move seems sound. The quizzes I saw were appropriate for an engineering course. Later, the overall organization of Wikiversity material on thermodynamics can be considered. We have not only Thermodynamics but also Thermodynamics and Equilibrium, with merge proposed since ... 2007!
My general thinking is that a Wikiversity top-level resource should generally correspond to a course in a university, not just to a lecture within a course or a particular assignment or part of the study. That is not to exclude other possibilities, but as a general, overall, organizational principle. "Engineering thermodynamics" is the title of university courses, and there is at least one textbook with that name. So it qualifies in that respect. Thermodynamics, then, can be developed toward the general science, which has many non-engineering implications. Thermodynamics will link to Engineering thermodynamics.
However, where will people be looking for this material? There is another possibility: Thermodynamics/Engineering. In theory, as well, Engineering/Thermodynamics. Regardless, School:Engineering or Topic:Engineering will organize the material. We have *too many ways,* perhaps. The problem with too many ways: maintenance. --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I used Engineering thermodynamics because the page had already been started by someone else. The problem of *too many ways* might someday turn into a blessing. Suppose somebody else wants to do engineering thermodynamics from a different (but equal) perspective? The now-empty names Thermodynamics/Engineering and Engineering/Thermodynamics may someday come in handy.
I will move the quizzes now. What am I supposed to do with the redirect -- keep the redirect ... or update all the links to the old page? --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 21:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I just moved 'em, and assume I need to clean up the redirects. But I will wait before deleting them just in case.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 21:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, redirects. As a custodian, you can move without leaving redirects. I have to request deletion, but that's easy, of course. The question is whether or not someone will be looking for it. I check for any incoming links, and will often clean them up (i.e., edit them to point to the new target. This is a must for double redirects, which fail. Sometimes, if I think it might be possible for there to be an off-wiki link, I'll google the URL. However, this is important: the deleted page will show where it was moved. So if someone *is* looking, it's just an extra step for them. When I'm prepping for a custodian, I will leave as few incoming links as possible, because incoming should always be checked before deletion.
In other words, do your best, but also know that if you make a mistake, it can be fixed. Those edit summaries are important. Some admins on some wikis leave unintelligible edit summary. Okay, page was deleted. Why? Discussion? Redirect? Transparency is important!
So if you delete something on your own initiative, and someone else asks for it to be undeleted, you will normally undelete it. Simple. And if you still think it should be deleted, you will then, like any other user, go to WV:RFD. You also have the intermediate tool, Dave often uses it, Template:Proposed deletion. A slow wastebasket, and, again, if someone later requests undeletion, no big deal. Very important on wikis to develop habits that are high-efficiency, low-conflict. Conflict wastes enormous amounts of time -- if there is another way.
Now, as to the issue of someone else wanting to do thermodynamics from a different perspective, it could be argued that they can and should be in the same hierarchy. So there might be Thermodynamics/Engineering and Thermodynamics/Cosmology perhaps. And suppose someone wants to do Engineering thermodynamics from an unconventional perspective? What then? We avoid content conflict on Wikiversity by forking resources, but we should do that openly, not by some hidden means. I.e., the conventional page is "Engineering thermodynamics" and the unconventional page shoud not be "Best thermodynamic ideas" or something like that. Mess! We seek to have top level pages represent high consensus, ideally unanimity (and that, it turns out, is usually possible, in spite of what Wikipedians often believe), and then we can create essay pages or sections with attribution, effectively page ownership. So Engineering thermodynamics might have a section with essay subpages, or entire courses as a subpage hierarchy. It could be named after the user. (So a university catalog may have, for a course, sections, each with their own T.A. or professor.) In these subpages, original research is allowed (with disclosure) and the entire page can have a disclaimer. If you haven't already seen examples, you will.
(The idea about OR being allowed on subpages is not policy, it wasn't said this way. It was just said that it was allowed; the founders of Wikiversity didn't have high experience dealing with controversy. We do have a neutrality policy, so .... we make sure that what isn't neutral, or might be alleged not to be neutral, is attributed. Original Research here really means that the editor is the source.)
One more point about deletion. Page moves don't harm newcomers, usually, because their Contributions history will now point to the new page. They will get watchlist notices from the new page. And if they do look at the old page name, they will see the move. What is really disconcerting is when something you have written is deleted because someone else didn't understand it or didn't see the educational purpose. We can say that there is a general educational purpose in writing any page or anything. There is a really good example, one of our users, who was about 7 years old when he started editing. Now, can you imagine what the editing of a 7-year old looks like? Would it be a lucky guess if you suspected that he was being blocked right and left across WMF wikis? I saw what he was doing, realized his age, and moved his pages into his user space, and encouraged him to practice writing and wikitext, etc. He made mistakes now and then, but this transformed a budding "vandal," learning to reboot his modem when blocked, into a useful user, rapidly learning not only to write but also to cooperate.
So we use user space that way. I have *never* seen a user get seriously upset when their page was moved to user space. Deletion hurts. So we are careful about it. We do delete spam and gross incivility, vandalism. But "test edit" vandalism, no big deal. We do not generally warn IP addresses, because they are unlikely to see it, and it simply creates a talk page for no purpose. If there is repeat vandalism from an IP, we might block, but would usually leave talk page access open, etc. Always, I encourage users to register an account.
I also look at global activity if there is a problem here, and request global blocks/locks when appropriate. In these cases, the user knows what they are doing, they are not going to be rudely surprised. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I left the redirect to Thermodynamics practice quizzes because I could find no evidence that the page creator made a link to it. Apparently he typed the name into the search window. I will see him next week we will get this sorted out.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 02:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

From "What links here," the only links now are our discussions. I searched off-wiki for ""Thermodynamics_practice_quizzes". All hits were here (to the deleted pages, they are still in Google's cache). Such a link is [3]. Notice how loading that page, though it has been deleted, automatically loads the deletion and move log. So right there is a link to the page where it was moved. So if the user does type it into his browser, or into the search window, the user then finds out what happened.
As well, Contributions for the user now show the current location. Hence there is no need for the redirect, and once that is seen, my recommendation is immediate deletion, because if it is not done immediately, it gets lost in the avalanche. This kind of deletion you can do unilaterally, it is not necessary to tag the page for speedy deletion and let someone else do it. It's simply cleanup, and it's transparent, no content is hidden, etc.
As you become more involved and realize the sheer volume of work to be done, efficiency will loom large. Key is to do this work efficiently and transparently. My opinion has long been that specific procedures should be documented; the old Wikipedia idea was that this was "instruction creep." What happened to the "old Wikipedians"? Most of them burned out....
(The error was in assuming that guidelines - simply a "tested way to do things" -- would become policies, with transgressors being punished, a reaction to a dysfunctional subset of users, the wikilawyers. No, "violators" would be guided, and if they have found a better way, it would be incorporated into the guideline. That was, in fact, the original wiki concept, it was for community-created system documentation.) --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It's amazing how we grow[edit]

If it wasn't for you being here, I wouldn't have been the user I am today, I would've probably lost interest here and been one of those "gamer" kids (which every kid I know in real life is). I can't thank you enough for mentoring me those past years. I would've never expected myself, a past "vandal" for two years, banned on Simple English Wikipedia for a year, problems at Simple English Wiktionary, problems here as well in 2013, AND problems at Meta, to become an administrator on the English Wikibooks, a project I actively contribute to. It's shocking how I got here, and all I really should thank to get that position is you, maybe a few other users helped, but the actual person who helped me the best is you. Thank you/Shukran. -- (discuss) 16:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking for clarification[edit]

Abd, Since you were the one to greet me for my new account, I guess you are the one I should turn to. I have three interests, metaphysics, physics and political economy, and I have started out with physics. I wrote an article but in my ignorance appear to have simply written myself in my Discuss section. I want to know where to move it if possible. My general approach and interest is in examining relationships between existing data in a novel way, in this case with a dimensional analysis of the supposedly dimensionless fine structure constant. This then segues into theoretical research I have done concerning the physical constants. The first part could probably go in Wikipedia and I imagine the second part will have to go in Wikiversity, for now. Can you enlighten me as to where and how? Much obliged.

--Trebreh nitram (discusscontribs) 23:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

For now I set up a new set of subpages under Physics/Essays and my user name and recreated the page to there.

--Trebreh nitram (discusscontribs) 12:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all, do not attempt to move the essay you created to Wikipedia. It would very likely be deleted. You may contribute on Wikipedia to existing articles, but you may find that those who know something about a subject are not welcome on Wikipedia. And, of course, most writers don't know much about Wikipedia policies. Here, you can just write (in an essay, that is why essay spaces are being set up). On Wikipedia, everything must be sourced to reliable source, and it can get really complex.
You may also point, on Wikipedia -- and certainly on Wikipedia talk pages -- to Wikiversity resources where a topic may be explored and discussed. Wikipedia is not for that, and attempting to discuss a topic there can get a user warned, blocked, or sometimes even banned.
Gaining wider participation in your resource (which would include criticism) will deepen your learning experience. If problems arise, get help from me, do not go first to an administrator, and let someone experienced do that if it is necessary. I and the operating core of Wikiversity want every user to be successful at learning-by-doing and at expression and sometimes teaching. We do this in a way that preserves site neutrality, that's all.
As well, look around for other users here who might be competent to comment on your essay. Fedosin occurs to me, but there are others. See who is editing physics pages.
Get involved with the community. Wikiversity is like a virtual university, and core to that is community. So take an interest in it. If very few of us do that, Wikiversity can run away from us, it's happened before.
Rereading your comment here, definitely your own "theoretical research" cannot go on Wikipedia, see the Wikipedia guideline on original research. Original research on Wikiversity requires some care, but don't worry. If there is a problem someone will tell you, and the important thing then will be to be cooperative, to learn how we handle controversy. Mostly, it doesn't happen, but it used to happen, until we got some operating traditions in place.
Once again, welcome! --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, "looking at X in a novel way" is a form of original research, it is called synthesis. Prohibited on Wikipedia as well. If you have put X and Y together to conclude Z, you may be able to put X and Y in an article, so that the reader may put them together, sometimes. You cannot put Z in the article. Even if it seems obvious to you, unless someone has covered Z in a Reliable Source. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I look forward to becoming and remaining involved. I will set up the subpage as you discussed and delete the page from the mainspace. I assume it would be best to re-paste the text from my text editor instead of copy and paste from that page. I'll figure out moving later. I was aware about Wikipedia and established consensus info, but would like to provide unobtrusive links, along with explicit statement that they are to Wikiversity articles, where I feel they are appropriate. Should I defer to others, such as yourself, as to when and where that might be? In other words, I would put X and or Y in a Wikipedia article and Z in my Wikiversity essay or discussion. The following is an example

/*==Dimensional Analysis== Much if not all of the above quandary and mystification concerning the fine structure constant can be clarified by applying the process of dimensional analysis of the fine structure constant, as in the linked essay from Wikiversity.*/

--Trebreh nitram (discusscontribs) 16:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Trebreh nitram, the comment you drafted above might be okay on a Wikipedia talk page, definitely not in Wikipedia mainspace. Simpler and less possibly controversial would be "This topic may be discussed on (Wikiversity:PAGENAME)." What you wrote wasn't neutral. Wikipedia editors can sometimes be very touchy.
  • In Wikipedia articles, you can use w:Template:Wikiversity. That will automatically point to a Wikiversity page with the same name. If you want it to point to a different page, you can, see the instructions on the template page. These, if done properly, should be accepted. Sometimes they aren't, and it can take a skilled user to know how to handle that (i.e., to address the problem.) --Abd (discusscontribs) 21:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to respond in a discussion on this page or my user page, which is where I have been receiving some of your responses. I have included some of my responses on my talk page.

I was familiar with Fedosin's page on the fine structure constant which is essentially the core of the Wikipedia entry and in the public domain. (It just occurred to me that in a few years I will be in the public domain.) My entry recapitulates that and adds further analysis. I put a link on Wikipedia pointing to the page and stated it as you suggested, but it was quickly removed. I first put it in the main body near the end, then realized it should have been in the External links and changed it. I don't know what the issue was.

I have been an avid user of Wikipedia for years but have refrained from editing or commenting or setting up a user account due to suppositions that are corroborated in a reading of some of the links in the Disclosures section of your User page. I was raised to be civil and respect others and their opinions, and I generally do a decent job. So I won't try to force the links from Wikipedia, unless you think it can be addressed amicably.

I understand Wikipedia's need to maintain historical accuracy, with respect to the history of events and to the history of knowledge. Unfortunately the history of knowledge also includes matters of opinion. The following in Wikipedia, physical constant, is a case in point and is germane to the current discussion. I quote from the "Dimensional and dimensionless physical constants" section of that page, fourth paragraph, "The fine-structure constant α is probably the best known dimensionless fundamental physical constant. Many attempts have been made to derive its value (currently measured at about 1/137.035999) from theory, but so far none have succeeded. (Emphasis is mine.) The same holds for the dimensionless ratios of masses of fundamental particles (such as mp/me, approximately 1836.152672)." One would think that the implication of the quoted statement would be that those interested in the page topic would also be interested in a satisfactory answer to the puzzle. To me that is how the inquisitive human mind works.

The page that you have helped me post answers this puzzle, up through the second paragraph of the "Significance" section; for the dispassionate and objective reader, I would say decidedly so. The rest of the page and the externally linked material gives it context, significant context, but really has no bearing on the validity of the first part. Familiarity with the topic may help, but a basic understanding of algebra indicates the nature of what is essentially a man-made dilemma. The last sentence of the above quote concerning the ratio of particle masses is answered in the external links, if the premise of that study is accepted as a working hypothesis. (That premise is simply that the only fundamental material thing that exists is space, which in an initial condition is a finite continuum with a uniform inertial density. It expands, from any local frame of reference (or they condense away from each other, the math is the same in either case), and this expansion stress produces local oscillation, really a type of internal friction, and thereby all quantum effects. Many of the puzzling features of experimental physics can be understood if such premise is made and logically followed. )

From the point of view of copyright, there is certainly no plagiarism in the external material, but I have made no attempt to go back and cite original sources on most of the physics body of knowledge most of which is over 70 years old.

I only thought about contributing to the Wiki project after coming upon Wikiversity through Fedosin's work and after a review of its policies. The association did and still seems promising. I am looking for a venue that will allow me to vet approximately 2 decades of study into the foundations of physical theory. The operable word here is vet. I'm not looking for an ego satisfying bully pulpit. It is hardly in a complete form and its superstructure would benefit from collaboration and pursuit of its implications by others with the necessary expertise. The foundation, however, is well understood by me. I am in hopes of finding a few others that can accept the above premise as a hypothesis long enough to follow the logic, as mathematically expressed in terms of my limited ability. (I switched from an intended major in physics to economics in college, but have worked in the design and construction business most of my life. Still this has given me enough of a familiarity with the math of structural design, materials strength, etc. such as stress and strain tensors and differential equations to approach this subject.) This study postulates no new particles or fields as the standard model has been wont to do. It simply describes the relationships between observed phenomena more effectively than the current modeling. It needs a proper vetting as it may have beneficial implications for technology.

Also let me know what you think about my user name in the context of the external links.

PS, I do like there mechanics of this Wiki format.

--Trebreh nitram (discusscontribs) 18:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Okay, basic process. Respond to a comment in the place that the comment was made, that's the mature position. The reason is that if I have edited a page, normally, it will be on my watchlist, so I will be notified of any changes to the page (I am set up in Preferences to receive email notification of all changes to pages in my watchlist, and I'm set up to automatically add a page to my watchlist if I edit it). You may also increase the probability that I will notice any edit, anywhere, by putting in a link to my username. For example, if you are set up to see notifications (enable all notifications listed in Preferences), User:Trebreh nitram should generate a notification, no matter what page it is placed on. As well, you will receive a notification of any edit to your User talk page. So if I want to insure, maximally, that you will see an edit, I will make it to your user talk page.
  • As to Wikipedia, how you think is common. I.e., you would think that those interested in the page topic would be interested in the issues you raise. But many Wikipedia editors, particularly the general-purpose editors, are not interested in the topics, per se. They are interested in the overall project, seeing that policies are followed as they interpret them, they may be interested in raising their edit count, in becoming administrators, and a focus on a topic distracts them from that. If you want to develop your reputation on Wikipedia -- and I'm not saying you should -- I can tell you a video game that you can play to do this. It's mildly fun, and it will develop your wiki skills.
  • But with your interest in the topic, you are now not "one of them." You have a point of view, which they imagine is Bad. You will be a "POV-pusher," and if you insist, they will block you.
  • So don't insist, first of all. You may explore your interests here, and you may link to Wikiversity pages from Wikipedia. How you did it may have been a problem. I will interrupt my writing to see what you did.
  • Okay, I see what you did. It was reverted as a "good faith" edit, i.e., you were not accused of misbehavior, but the opinion was expressed, Not a valuable external link. That's an opinion, and misses the point, in fact.
  • Your edit would have been fine and almost certainly would not be removed, if made on the Talk page. In fact, you could, there, discuss whether or not a link to Wikiversity should be in the article.
  • First thinks girst. Make another edit to the article. Use the Wikiversity template, so that the link is to "Fine structure constant" on Wikiversity. That is currently a link to the Fedosin essay. We will expand that so that it is its own page, with links to your essay and Fedosin's essay. And any other essay on the topic in Wikiversity mainspace. Basically, we open the space for discussion, and this page (currently the redirect) will be rigorously neutral.
  • The template you place would appear personal, your opinion is being linked, so I don't wonder that it was removed. If the sister wiki link to a neutral page is removed, that will be something to discuss! When you make the edit, make it appear, clearly, as an attempt to improve what you did, to answer possible objections. I would use an edit summary of "Is this better?" Just place, in External Links, {{Wikiversity}} . Okay?
  • If that is also reverted, don't do anything more until I've seen it and can advise how to proceed without minimal disruption.
  • You may continue to develop your resource here. As an Essay, it's relatively bulletproof. That is, it's your attributed opinion, and nobody should mess with it except to improve it if you consent. I.e., you can revert any changes to that page. Do not edit war, if somebody insists on mangling the page. One revert, asking them to stop, is enough. If they insist, get help. Do not insist by yourself! You can ask me, and there is also WV:RCA. But do not go to RCA until you have much more experience -- unless backed into a corner, and if you go, go asking for advice and help. Not for the other user to be blocked. Let the custodians figure that out if it is necessary. You will, by the way, follow this principle on Wikipedia. At this point, you have my advice. Remember, I'm banned on Wikipedia. But people who have followed my advice have been successful there. And here.
  • One more point. I once was working with a user who used a classic letter-shift code to encode his real name into his user name. When it was hinted on-wiki that his name was a code, it was almost immediate that the code was cracked. Communities are good at that. Once I knew there was a significance to the name, the code is obvious. From it, and a few minutes of google, I know, likely, who you are and where you probably live. Given what you are doing, here I recommend simply disclosing your name, and disclosing any conflict of interest.
  • Most important, here, would be disclosing that a web site you link to is yours, if that is so. General policy or guidelines require disclosure of conflicts of interest. On Wikiversity, it is common for users to use real names. The Single User Log-in process, with automatic log-in, i.e., log into one wiki, you are logging in to all, made this tricky and somewhat hazardous. Unintended consequences...
  • On other wikis, linking to your own web site would be considered spamming, and it can get the web site globally blacklisted. So do not link to your own web site, except here and with disclosure. We will accept appropriate linking to your own web site here, given that you are developing related resources. Just make sure conflict of interest policy is followed. Be very careful about linking to that site on other pages; consult if there is any doubt. Don't even think about linking to it on Wikipedia, until and unless you know what you are doing.
  • There is also an issue of copyright. If you copy text from your own web site, you may need to explicitly authorize this. We are not hard-nosed about this, but getting OTRS verificatinon of permission can take months, so if you think you might need to use your own content here, you will need to verify that it's you! I've never done this, I just know roughly the idea. Once that permission is in place, you can upload images to Commons, for example. You definitely will need this for the images you uploaded. Here, we may be able to claim fair use, but why not do it right? I'll advise you on this on your Talk page. --Abd (discusscontribs) 13:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Looking at w:Talk:Fine-structure constant, there are comments from users there, obviously wanting to discuss the FSC, and getting ignored or told it is w:WP:OR. Wikipedians do not know to link to Wikiversity. They will need to be educated. Overall Wikipedia guidelines would suggest pointing these users to Wikiversity, because the topic can be discussed here, and Original Research is allowed (with some caution, this is why the "essay" concept is used. It avoids controversy as to whether or not some statement is "true," or or whether or not it is notable or verifiable, both of which Wikipedia need. It's an encyclopedia. We are a university. We study topics here.
  • Wikipedians often have no clue at all what we do here. They look at Wikiversity and think it is an awful mess. They ought to see my office.... But I just got an important paper published under peer review, and I just got a very substantial grant to facilitate research. Out of the mud grows the lotus.
  • But first, try the sister wiki link on the article page. If that is removed, then you will make some comments on the Talk page, you will continue to watch that page, and then make specific suggestions to specific users when they show up -- on their user talk pages -- that they are welcome to discuss the topic on Wikiversity. You could also go back and make such suggestions based on old comments on the article talk page. Most of those will go nowhere, most users are gone, most users don't really watch Wikipedia. However, it's quick to drop a note, and the text of that note could be generic. But do not add many of those at once. You are a new user, with very low edit count, and the regular Wikipedians who do Recent Changes patrol will be suspicious. I'd suggest adding one, then wait a week and see what happens, then add another, maybe two. If someone asks you to stop, stop. Never ignore a warning. Discuss, perhaps, but, basically, get help and advice. (Adding a lot of notices can be considered "spamming," and that is especially true if they contain external links, which these will. They are not about to blacklist Wikiversity, but there could be fallout for you. A little caution can prevent that.) What gets so many new users in trouble is that they get a "good idea," and immediately implement it. Sometimes with great energy and many edits, believing that they are being helpful. But they don't understand the community and how it works, how the antispammers function, etc. Those users work tirelessly, but not always carefully! --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Before doing anything else, to help in disclosure should I simply change my signature in Preferences or should I request a username change? I reviewed the procedure briefly along with the global implications and it looks involved. On the other hand, seems in the long run the username and signature should correspond. I assume such changes are retroactive to prior posts.--Trebreh nitram (discusscontribs) 15:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

First things first. Long-term, do you prefer your real name or a variation on it, or Trebreh nitram? Yes, if the user name is formally changed, through the process, your contributions history, and page histories, and logs, will show the new name. It is not involved if there are no other users with the source and target name. If you decide to make the change, just let me know and I'll help you do it.
The old signatures won't automatically change. You don't have a lot of those out, and you could edit them to change the signature if you want, or just leave it. (Here, in the discussion, you should leave it, since we talked about it.) People can figure out who that is, from history and possibly a link from User:Trebreh nitram and the talk page, we would allow that (and it can be useful, for all those old signatures).
I recommend making the change. If your goal is academic, your real name actually becomes important. You have the right to edit anonymously, but this isn't Wikipedia and we have different goals here. My user name is not my "legal name," but it's a name I have used for many years, and my paper was published under this name. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax. Lomax, is, of course, my birth name, I was given the other name more than forty years ago. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I should make the change. My name is Herbert Martin Gibson. I was a Junior, and my father went by Herbert, so I always went by Mart, Martin if the situation was more formal. I grew up in a small town in the south where everyone had a double name, and my dad was called Herbert Martin by his parents generation, so I was Herbert Martin, Jr. Hence, when forced to chose a name on Wiki and not sure if I should remain anonymous, I chose Trebreh nitram. So it could be any combination or permutation of the above. I have read about you on the net. You are a man of faith and reason. I would like you to choose a name for me. I would like to read your paper, if it is online. I believe LENR got short changed and that it has promise for the future. --Trebreh nitram (discusscontribs) 23:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you. Use your real name if it is available. Martin Gibson is available. So are Herbert Martin Gibson, H. Martin Gibson, Herbert Martin Gibson, Jr. and Mart Gibson. Pick one, and, logged in as User:Trebreh nitram, go to the global rename request form, and fill out the form. It should show you your current name. Fill in the requested name and press the Big Green Button to request the name change. There is a special page here you can use to check on renaming progress, it is Special:GlobalRenameProgress. Unless there is a problem, in which case they will contact you, I assume that this is all.
  • The Special Section on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions in w:Current Science. I know most of the scientists who had papers in that section. In early 2009, I had no idea that cold fusion had been vindicated, I assumed with most else that it had been some artifact, and that if it was real, I'd surely have heard about it. Most people capable of understanding the topic have thought that. I was wrong. this is my paper and it describes how I know the effect is real.
  • In early 2009, I came across an abusive blacklisting on Wikipedia, addressed that, and started to look at the article. There were obvious problems with it, and when I tried to fix them, I ran into a faction that had basically won a battle to take over the article, that could be a summary. They had done so by establishing a long-time editor of it as "having a battleground mentality," and banning him, which wasn't true, but it is an argument that can sell to the Wikipedia community. He was actually a supporter of Wikipedia, and proud of how well Wikipedia process worked. He was about to experience the other side of it.....
  • Don't cry for him! Once he was banned, he got a job in the field. As for me, I just got a grant from a nonprofit to support the work of Infusion Institute. I'm not at liberty to say the amount, but the check had more zeros than I've seen for a long time. It's enough to start.
  • If you would like to help with the Cold fusion resource here, that would be fantastic. Skeptical commentary is invited. What was really fun was the peer review process at Current Science. The section editors were easy. Meulenberg had been a long-time correspondent, and he was my roommate at ICCF-18 (which was itself a fantastic experience for me. I got to see Cerenkov radiation up close, I'd known about it since I was in my early teens.... that has nothing to do with cold fusion, except that it's missing, that's a clue. There should be some if there were hot alphas. There aren't.)
  • I still had to convince the other section editor that I wasn't bad-mouthing the BARC tritium research. He got it and so the paper went on to a regular reviewer, who was apparently a normal physicist. I.e., uh, "Wasn't this all debunked years ago? This is impossible! Coulomb barrier! Neutrons! What a horrible paper!" (not an exact quote, but you can get the idea.)
  • How did I take that? As evidence that I'd failed to make my point! I rewrote the paper to tell him what he needed to know, so he'd get it from the top. It worked. He actually suggested some of the conclusion.
  • Yes, cold fusion got short-changed. However, the discoverers made some serious mistakes, it was not just "the skeptics." I fully understand why the opinion arose that it was artifact and error, and even why some level of opinion arose that it was fraud.
  • Eppur si muove. --Abd (discusscontribs) 02:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I selected Martin Gibson for the change and will wait for it to come through before contributing much further. In the meantime, I read your article with great interest. The results are what I would expect, though it's been a few years since I've given much thought to elemental, I.e. nuclear physics. My obsession has been the neutron and what it's ontology must be, and under what conditions and why a free neutron experiences beta decay and becomes a proton. Still I believe I understand the basics of nuclear congregation of n and p, especially with respect to spin and dipole alignment, not in the mathematical form of QCD, but in a complementary geometric form that can be visualized and animated on a computer screen. It doesn't surprise me that cold nuclear interactions with few high energy emissions are found. I will try and catch up on your project pages and sites over the next few days and possibly give you a little more depth about my related interests and studies. I would be delighted to work on your III or other LENR projects. Is it best to continue all contact herein, or can I use your email for PDF attachments, etc? --Martin Gibson (discusscontribs) 04:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • As you can see the name change went through. I'm not concerned about the existing signatures, but I'm not sure if there are any precautions in changing the file path to the essay.
  • I read the preface to the LENR edition of Current Science and will continue to the articles. If you think any of them should have priority, please let me know. Also wondering if the cold fusion page in Wikiversity is sufficient overview for now and would help in narrowing my review of CS. I am not a fast reader.

--Martin Gibson (discusscontribs) 18:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the article by McKubre is important. My paper is, of course, very important, right? Actually, I was told that by McKubre, Storms, Meulenberg, and others.
My opinion about cold fusion theory is that it is all half-baked. Basically, there isn't enough data. So, then, physicists try to figure out how the hell this could be happening. So they make up stuff. Few of them actually become familiar with the experimental evidence, so they create theories that predict what is already contradictory to the known evidence. And then there is Ed Storms, a chemist, who is thoroughly fried by physicists making up theories that don't correspond to the experimental reality. So he finally made up his own theory, designed to match the evidence. Problem is, my opinion, the physics is completely wonky. We have fun, I can tell you, on the private mailing list for CMNS researchers. I write more there than anywhere else. That's how I learn. -- it should go without saying that I also read....
There is a lot going on, much of which is likely to be confusing. The Big Deal for the last few years has been Andrea Rossi, who is not a scientist, he's an entrepreneur, engineer, and inventor. And he is keeping the jewels secret, but making big claims. And he looks like a complete con artist. I think he deliberately cultivates that impression. This is a very complicated story. The best opinion in the field -- which, naturally, matches mine :-) -- is that Rossi probably found something, but it isn't yet reliable, which can explain a lot. Inventors are prone to puffery, even a little trickery, on occasion. (It may have become reliable, that's completely unclear.) Rossi is being backed by a company called Industrial Heat, and the President of Industrial Heat just spoke, today, in Padua at ICCF-19. There is a transcript at [4]. Very nice speech. That site is run by Ruby Carat, a very enthusiastic woman with a physics degree, not necessarily very hard-headed, but energetic and she's doing much great work.
Robert Duncan's speech would be worth reading, I'm sure, but I haven't seen a transcript yet. There is a research institute starting at the University of Texas, which he is heading. Spring is breaking out all over. --Abd (discusscontribs) 03:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"Ah, the essay. It's simple, I'll look and see if you have fixed it. We can leave a redirect in place, and/or fix the links. I prefer to clean up, but it's getting late now .... --Abd (discusscontribs) 03:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have't done any more on the essay, I guess you changed the user name on the directory. If so, thanks.I sent an email to your Lomaxdesign address concerning the relevance of my study to LENR. Let me know if you don't get it. I can relay the info here if you like. I read McKubre and Storms first essay. Storms is good. I believe his thinking would be helped by a review of my investigations. I know it would take some getting used to and would take an investment in time, but it will be worth it to anyone looking for answers. Let me know what I can do.--Martin Gibson (discusscontribs) 21:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ereticopedia again[edit]

see this : --Dsantare7 (discusscontribs) 10:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I will consider voting there. (I edited that page once as Abd sock, since there was a conflicting account at However, my opinion, which I will express, is that the page should be deleted, as it stands. We may conserve content here, for future use. I will also handle that. I'd rather have the English page, but it would be inconvenient to get it. My guess is that the French is good enough. If other mentions in reliable source appear, let me know. This is like many pages created on the encyclopedia projects, there was insufficient evidence in reliable source of notability. (The arguments about the page creator are spurious.)
Do not confuse this issue with the issue of linking to ereticopedia, that's entirely different. Ereticopedia is, my opinion, academic reliable source, and thus the global blacklisting should be addressed, within policy, which, given a history -- or alleged history -- of "promotion," requires whitelisting specific pages for use. We have whitelisted here, for our use, but that will not be enough to move the leviathan. One step at a time. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Fusion Theory[edit]

The video[edit]

I've finished the video which has some animations and notations of what I believe is going on. I was aware of the helium immobility and have addressed it in the video. It naturally follows from the analysis. The video goes into greater detail about the lattice geometry, in particular the tetrahedral component of the interstices which is crucial to understanding. I intend to upload it to YouTube or some other appropriate venue, but would like to get some feedback first, primarily as to clarity of the exposition, not its validity. If I put it in my dropbox, can you take a look? It will need a condensed matter person to review it at some point, once again as to misuse or misunderstanding of current formalism, not fact. --Martin Gibson (discusscontribs) 21:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm expert on the general literature and state of research into cold fusion, but not specifically as to each involved science. I'll look at what you point to, if I can. Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 21:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I sent a link to the dropbox via your email address. The video is an MP4 file, about 28 minutes, of which about the first half is a detailed view of the lattice geometry. The animation of the hydrogen movement in the lattice starts at about minute 19 and is without narration, lasts about 4 and a half minutes. Thanks again, --Martin Gibson (discusscontribs) 20:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I watched the video. I've never really understood the fcc structure, I'd never really gotten what o-sites and t-sites were; however, I think I do understand it better now. I suspect it could be still better explained. (I mostly thought of o-sites, not of the tetrahedral t-sites.)
I did not see helium immobility addressed in the video. Maybe I missed it.
There are basic problems: if the fusion is merely electron and density catalyzed, why does it not behave as muon-catalyzed fusion? The math apparently doesn't work for the fusion itself, and then, if it fusions, the branching ratio would be expected to be as normal fusion (as is MCF), and, the "third miracle," if helium is formed, how is that huge quantum of energy distributed without gammas? Energy transfer to phonons of that magnitude is pretty iffy.
This is the mystery of cold fusion: it happens, and we don't know how, and every theory seems preposterous from some point of view or other, and none of them have true experimental confirmation. Except for the primitive "deuterium conversion to helium" theory, which is silent on mechanism or even whether it is deuterium, or D(N) fusion with N>2, or maybe one of my favorites, the gremlin theory.
Gremlins decompose the deuterium into quarks and reassemble them as helium and at the same time create a huge pile of phonons. Sparks from their hammers, perhaps. Do gremlins use hammers? --Abd (discusscontribs) 21:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The Hagelstein paper[edit]

I just read Hagelstein and Chaudhary, "Phonon models . . .", in the Current Science edition that included your article, and it brings a couple of things to mind.

Correct me if I am wrong, but their opinion is that 4He results from a transformation of D2 which has formed in the O-sites, which I take to mean the octahedral interstitial areas, due to electrolysis. They then posit the spin-boson model using the Hamiltonian with various stated couplings, to explain fractionation. I interpret the fractionation issue to be one of dispersion of the 24Mev fusion product to the lattice as phonon energy, but am a bit confused about how they see the nuclear fusion occurring within the bonded dideuterium, except that it appears to necessarily involve the lattice vibration. Is this your take on their position. I will need to reread it a few times.

Second, I refer to Appendix 1, of their piece, under the Mathematical model and physical picture topic, second paragraph, last sentence in which they lament “Unfortunately, the relativistic coupling of the center of mass motion with the internal spin degrees of freedom is not easy to visualize under any circumstances, largely because we do not have a relevant good microscopic model for spin that we can visualize in the first place.”

I can demonstrate spin and the rest of the basic quantum properties on a nuclear level so that it can be readily visualized, if any interested party is willing to listen. It is available in the YouTube videos linked to the page I uploaded a few weeks ago.

I found out that Tom Darden operates his ventures out of Raleigh, NC, just 60 miles up the road from here, and have spoken briefly with his assistant about getting a few minutes of his time to do a brief dog and pony show. I understand he has an agreement with Hagelstein, so I guess he would defer to him for feedback. No response to date.

It is worthy of note, that when I had just started this research back in the late 1990’s, I joined the APS at the suggestion of the physicist at the local community college. I found John Huizenga’s name in the membership roster. I knew of him only because a good friend of mine had designed his house in Pinehurst. I contacted him to get some feedback, but he declined with the comment that he couldn’t think of anything I could teach him about quantum theory, which missed the point entirely.

Such is the search for truth. --Martin Gibson (discusscontribs) 19:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

the paper. We can discuss this at Cold fusion/Current Science/Hagelstein 1 and maybe create some value for more than the two of us.
You wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but their opinion is that 4He results from a transformation of D2 which has formed in the O-sites, which I take to mean the octahedral interstitial areas, due to electrolysis.
Lucky you asked. The following is from the article:
The active sites in this picture are superabundant Pd vacancies formed on the outer 100 nm skin of cathodes where codeposition has occurred under conditions of high surface loading.
Not "O-sites." They have:
The background electron density in PdD due to Pd is too high at the O-sites for D2 formation, which means that most of the loaded cathode can be considered inert.
Some background: there are still some who are claiming that the reaction is bulk. I don't see any sign that these are considering the experimental evidence re helium. One simply refuses to discuss it (Swartz) and one simply said, at ICCF-19, that he doesn't believe the helium evidence (Hubler, giving no details, when this is probably the strongest result extant with cold fusion, after presenting his own theory, which involves dark matter, rumor is).
However, Storms has settled on the Nuclear Active Environment (what Peter calls the "active sites") as being nano-cracks, truly small cracks in the surface, and the experimental evidence this is based on is that cracks do form when palladium is loaded with D/H, pristine surface is inactive, the material requires time to develop activity, so something must change. Cracks are an obvious suspect. Large cracks, large enough for D2 to form, cause deloading, so the crack population must be in a certain range for activity, thus explaining the variability.
Peter's idea is rooted in the same evidence, but he is only looking at electrolytic work, where co-deposition does occur. How he would explain gas-loaded results, I'll leave to him. My own idea is "one mystery at a time." If we have a series of murders, it might be a serial killer, but the first goal would be to solve one crime," and see if it leads to the others.
Maybe I've been watching too much Booth and Brennan (w:Bones (TV series)) at my daughter's urging.
So unlike Storms, I don't insist that a theory address all known phenomena. It might fail to address dandruff. Or, say, biological transmutation, on which there is some fascinating but unconfirmed evidence. A lot of the cold fusion field is like that: amazing results that nobody even tries to replicate.
Anyway, what hits me at first about the Hagelstein and Chaudhary paper is what they say about helium:
If D2 can interact in a new way to form 4He, then at high power level we expect the active sites to accumulate helium, which inhibits further reactions at the blocked sites. Getting the helium out of the traps associated with the active sites, and diffusing it to a nearby surface is required then at high power level. This picture is consistent with the observed temperature dependence of the excess heat.
Would we expect the NAE to accumulate helium? Maybe. Helium is mobile in the pure lattice, but is trapped at grain boundaries, and my guess would be that it could be trapped in a vacancy similarly. However, I'm seeing no quantitative analysis here. A little helium represents a lot of heat. Further, I'd expect the helium to have some birth energy, to not be cold; it would easily break free of the weak bonds and would thus be in the normal lattice, where it will move until it either finds exist or a trap. In the picture being given by H&C, it would be very near the surface, and it is in a complex structure that forms under codeposition (generally a fractal). Hagelstein is aware of the problem. The 24 MeV of fusion energy must be dissipated by many small quanta, and if there are a thousand, per reaction that would still be a little too much energy. The "Hagelstein limit" is supposedly about 10 keV. However, it would only take a few eV for helium to break out of a vacancy, I'd think.
I don't think the evidence shows what would be expected behavior here. But I'm not prepared to reject the idea.
We need much more data, data that properly should have been gathered more than two decades ago.
I'm going to recommend, long-term, that you meet Peter. He's humble and thoughtful. I've spoken with him on the phone and a bit in person. He has been working on cold fusion since 1989, and by no means does he believe that he understands it. Huizenga, on the other hand, believed he understood what was going on. (A mistake. Because it's impossible. What's impossible? He never seems to have realized that he was rejecting his own fantasy.) His book is incoherently repetitive (though very useful historically, and he did understand physics, just not the frontiers, the "unknown." In his favor, he did recognize the importance of Miles' work with helium, unlike many.)

Response to Video and Hagelstein paper[edit]

Feel free to move this discussion to wherever you feel is appropriate.

As I see it, H/D move through the lattice by leap frogging between covalent bonds, while He cannot or does not generally do this and can only move due to lattice vibration or brownian interaction with other He or H/D. I addressed this perhaps only tangentially, but if fusion occurs in the T chamber itself, absent the energy effects of fusion itself, the resulting He has no other motivation and gums up the works for hydrogen infusion.

In fusion pathway two of the video, which was only envisioned once I learned of the common electronegativity of Pd and H, and after the first scenario, the electrons of the two D atoms are in general anti-bonding positions with respect to each other, leaving the two nuclei relatively bare. If one D nucleus is stationed by its bond in the center of a T aperture by the electrostatic field of the three adjacent Pd atoms, and the other is projected by the covalent bonding of the D in the T chamber with the Pd atom opposite the T aperture with the first D nucleus, the second nucleus will be on a trajectory for the first. From here I don't know if I can explain what is happening in terms other than my discrete wave model of fundamental particles. This model answers the H and C question about visualizing nuclear spin. (If you want to see the structure of this nuclear wave form, you can view it at, I can't go into the necessary detail here, but what it means is that spacetime has a variable energy density or tensor field energy intensity apart from either rest mass or messenger quanta, and this is capable of distributing stress AND STRAIN classically, ala general relativity, on a microscopic scale without the explanatory need for Feynmann diagrams. Fusion of nucleons results from flipping of the angular momentum vectors in their approach to conserve spin energy and releases tension in their individual wave structures due to this economy, which is released as wave continua to the environment and lattice.

I would like to talk to Peter. Do I need an introduction or can I use you as a reference? Thanks again,

--Martin Gibson (discusscontribs) 18:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Sorry, Martin, didn't see this until now. I'll set up an introduction. Do you have any qualifications I can cite? Education? If it is all independent study (like mine, by the way, beyond two years of undergrad physics with Feynman), just say so and give some details. Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Probationary custodianship[edit]

Hi Abd!

If you are interested in becoming a probationary custodian, I would be willing to serve as mentor. Let me know. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 04:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I accept. Thanks. I will set up the process. --Abd (discusscontribs) 12:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I linked to this talk page section on Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Abd 4 It may be useful for you to explicitly sign that as offering mentor. Once that is done, you or I can ping Jtneill, the only active 'crat since early 2012. --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
As you have probably noticed SB Johnny has asked for a consensus before your fourth probationary custodian period. While this doesn't seem usual, I'd like to know what you think about this. I am willing to place a consensus request on the Colloquium with the proviso that if you successfully complete the probationary period of say five months by helping out with all the clean up we have that you automatically become a full custodian, or we can wait say until October to do this. Just some suggestions. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 17:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Marshallsumter, please reconsider going it alone with Abd. It's his 4th run-through, so I'll promote him myself if he gets 4 mentors. Abd means well, but he's very hard to communicate with when he's sure that he's right but someone else thinks he's not.

BTW, I don't oppose the mentorship policy, I just think it needs to be refined with "lessons learned" in mind. Abd (his arch-nemesis "Ottava" played a part as well) certainly did a good job of giving us a lesson, but most of us ran towards pretty much anywhere but here after they were done.

Do what you feel is best, but please take my advice into consideration. Also check out Abd's contribs on Commons and meta. --SB_Johnny talk 23:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Any examples? Policy requires 1 mentor. It specifically allows continued mentorship or continued probationary custodianship with a new mentor; it does not up the number of mentors. Certainly I will accept additional mentors, and the standard stop agreement makes every custodian my mentor, with teeth in it.
Suppose SBJ is right, suppose I am "hard to communicate with." We are talking here about custodianship, which means use of tools, not my psychology. Have I *ever* insisted on tool use in spite of a request to stop, have I ever wheel-warred? I was desysopped three times. None of it was for wheel-warring. Twice, SBJ was very involved. I have not raised the issues. SBJ is certainly right about one thing. I'm persistent. There were three sysop actions, out of about 600, that led to the desysoppings.
  • a two-hour block of Ottava Rima for incivility, later confirmed as within discretion by a 'crat. (Ottava immediately created a Community Review for that 'crat....)
  • a block of Ottava Rima, who was threatening users with being blocked by unnamed stewards or sysops. I was involved, so I immediately took it to the community, but SBJ immediately unblockedwithout addressing the reason for the block. (Because I was probationary and involved, I explicitly allowed any custodian to unblock, but did not expect pure wheel-warring.) Disruption continued, and I was desysopped in the process Ottava started. SBJ closed that discussion. Legit? Maybe, maybe not. I did not push the point.
  • SBJ blocked Poetlister1 with no consensus and no violation of Wikiversity policy. See the block log. SBJ had made it clear that a maintained block requires consensus, not the reverse, i.e., consensus is not necessary for unblock. There being discussion and no consensus for block, and after 9 days, I unblocked. Thenub314 immediately reversed it as wheel-warring, claiming there had been no discussion. Apparently, he hadn't looked. SBJ and Thenub314 went to meta for an emergency desysop. There was no emergency, no ongoing situation.
I'm proud of my work on Commons and meta. The Commons work began with assisting a Wikiversity user, probably on his way to being blocked there. He's not blocked. That's still in process. This work will have an impact on Commons policy, one small step toward sanity. It is being done with high caution. But it's irrelevant here. Only a Wikipedian Zombie Drama Queen] would think that a look at meta and Commons would of course discourage a Wikiversity sysop from mentoring. --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Ug. Yes, this is why I avoided this for so long. But it's time to confront SB Johnny, who has long opposed Wikiversity probationary custodianship policy, and did what he could to eject me from Wikiversity. He has argued for the closure of Wikiversity. He dislikes the place. Long story.
I will cover this much of it: See the history of Wikiversity:Custodianship. It was marked policy by JWSchmidt many years ago. It was added by a 'crat, then, to the policy category. The community actually used the process for years, nobody questioned it. However, in 2011, SB Johnny edited the page to deprecate it to proposed policy. I reverted that. Sometime later that year, another user, famously disruptive, made the same change, and it got very ugly, and I asked for custodial attention. As a result, the other user and I were indef blocked by SB Johnny. No policy justification, certainly not for indef, out of the blue. SB Johnny got what he wanted.
The policy is simple and workable, as it is. Adding in a new process is not a great idea, because there is a standing community consensus on the procedure, and it actually works. The only problem that has arisen is lack of mentor supervision.
Hence Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Standard stop agreement, though we should simply clarify probationary custodianship policy to provide for similar. That Stop Agreement removes all significant risk. What is SB Johnny afraid of? I can tell you, from what I know, but maybe he'd better be the one.
If you have any questions about the SSA, ask. It's designed to make a steward's job simple, and straightforward. It could be abused by any permanent custodian, i.e., if a permanent custodian were to ask me to stop using the tools, even if there were no reason for it, I'd have to stop, period, until the community made a decision. Or I'd be immediately desysopped by a steward, seeing the agreement, the request to stop, and that I didn't stop.
Following the standard procedure, we have one possibly controversial process ahead of us, the Permanent Custodian vote. There is no way to create an "automatic" process as you have described, that's complex and could easily be challenged later.
Policy actually allows continual probationary custodianship, so we *could* avoid that controversial process indefinitely. Ruy Pugliesi was a probationary custodian for over *three years*, with SB Johnny as absentee mentor.
If we follow the Colloquium idea, we then have *two* possibly controversial discussions. Keep it simple. One is enough.
If the existing process is questioned, then that is what should be discussed, and the Colloquium is not where it starts. It would be Wikiversity talk:Custodianship ... and possibly a WV:Community Review setting up an RfC/vote, site-messaged. No rush. I'm not going to create this process as a probationary custodian, or now, pending. If we drop the probationary custodianship, I will probably work on a CR, might as well. Probationary custodianship is a very important part of Wikiversity structure.
This is the process we have:
  • Candidate and mentor agree. Often the agreement predates the filing of the Candidacy. It's been immediately implemented with no time for discussion, many times. The only thing unusual here is the existence of my three prior periods of probationary custodianship. What the consensus was in the last vote is debatable. What's very clear is that four years ago there was *not* a consensus that I was unsuitable.
  • Bureaucrat implements. Bureaucrats are not slaves or robots. They cannot be forced to implement. They will or they won't. Implementation can also be by a steward, if needed.
  • The mentorship period is a minimum of four weeks. There is no maximum.
  • Then, when the candidate is ready, there is a seven-day evaluation period for community comment. We have typically site-messaged this.
  • Now, an exact quote: "After one week of evaluation, a bureaucrat will make the final decision based on the arguments provided in the discussion. If you are approved, you will be a permanent custodian. If you are not approved, your probationary period may either be extended or you may request another mentorship later.
Notice: arguments. It's not a vote. There is no specific threshold for approval.
Notice, as well, that desysop is not automatic. That is up to the mentor, actually (or a probationer may obtain another mentor, has 48 hours). It's covered in the policy. The option of extended probationary custodianship or later mentorship was long there. Sebmol ('crat) and JWSchmidt worked on that policy and the language was there from the beginning in 2006. In 2011, I used that possibility to create consensus. SB Johnny didn't like it, but he had little choice. He had no excuse for desysop. So he waited until he did have an excuse, the unblock of Poetlister1. He ignored the Standard Stop Agreement.
For this reason, I do not intend to be another "permanent probationary custodian." However, it could arise that we decide to wait, before creating the permanent process, that's all. --Abd (discusscontribs) 18:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your reasoned and reasonable response. I'll go ahead and ping Jtneill if you haven't done so already. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 19:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I did ping him.[5] However, you could add your request. There is also Mu301, who is still a 'crat. SBJ obviously knows about it! No rush. I would give at least a week for a 'crat to respond per policy. Meanwhile I (and you) will, I assume, respond to questions. That can continue forever, custodians are expected to be responsive. --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Four potential gravitation resource[edit]

Hi Abd!

Well, you are fast!

I had actually moved the discussion to the Discuss page for the resource. But, I had to speed off to a dentist appointment before adding a note on my Discuss page that I had moved it where I did. The discussion can stay on my Discuss page if you wish. I'll add a note on the bottom that a copy has been placed on the resource's discuss page. Cheers! Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I followed a link to it, and it wasn't there! I also removed that discussion from the resource talk page, replacing it with a permanent link. Here is my opinion: Generally people's comments should not be moved from where they were made, because they may not have that page on their watchlist. I've done a lot of research where I'm looking for a person's contributions, and those contributions would not be in their contributions, nor in page history. They would be in *your* contributions.
This might have been harmless, but ... it's not necessary, the link serves. We are going to move the two pages, I'm sure. I have asked the user who created them his preference.
I hope we can also engage the user who tagged it for speedy deletion. He made some comments on the physics that really should be made either in the resource, or on the attached talk page, and not as a conversation with someone else trying to argue for deletion. Comments on the physics! That could actually serve the user who created the page.
It is actually difficult to get Wikipedians and others who think pages are "fringe" to explain themselves. They mostly don't want to waste time with fringe. But fringe is the frontier. Most of it is probably ... not great! But the future of science often starts out as fringe. They are not obligated to explain themselves, and the user is right to point out fringe being presented as if it's mainstream or accepted. --Abd (discusscontribs) 00:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
We find the middle way. Thanks.

Subpages of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine[edit]


I saw you made subpages of articles in Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. I understand it can be a useful feature in Wikiversity, but I don't want this organization for these articles, since it is disturbing for the layout and makes it harder to easily see what it the actual title of any individual article. It is already clearly given in the right boxes that these articles belong to Wikiversity Journal.

Best regards,

Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Mikael, I don't think you have thought this all the way through, particularly not with the needs of Wikiversity and how wikis work. Generally, nobody owns pages on WMF wikis. However, we do allow *subpages* of resources, attributed to specific authors, to be effectively owned. Anyone can still edit them, but administrators will respect the "right of authorship" for them. It's a stretch for you to declare yourself the editor of the Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, with control of the top-level resource, but I think we can manage the stretch. I saw what you were doing when I noticed Estimating the lost benefits of not implementing a visual inspection with acetic acid screen and treat strategy for cervical cancer prevention in South Africa. If we saw a new user creating a page with a title like that, we'd generally move it to their user space or under a general resource. Because it is intended as a Journal article, I'm moving it under the journal, you will decide when to link it from the Journal page.
This is all part of long-term effort to organize Wikiversity. The only change that the move makes to the display of the page is that at the top, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine prefixes the page title. That's similar to the name of a journal being on every page in it. I also have questions about the peer review process, that you arrange for the peer review of your own articles is odd indeed for a peer-reviewed journal. However, that's a different issue.
What I can see as a possibility is to create a top-level resource WJOM. That would reduce the length of the displayed page title.
I left redirects in place, realizing you might have off-wiki incoming links. There are conflicts between wiki traditions (and policies) and what a peer-reviewed journal requires. Over the last few years, since about 2011, we have been creating practices that would allow page ownership, in two ways: as attributed subpages, and as user space pages. We could also protect pages; otherwise, all these pages are a happy target for vandals -- or just well-meaning users. If a paper was peer-reviewed, that was a specific version. Not necessarily the present one.
  • I see that you have some more pages being prepared. Those should also be moved under the Journal of Medicine resource, where they can be relatively protected. --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Dear Abd, Mathonius referred me to you for advice. I am one of the editors of the WJOM. We were discussing that it may be better to semi-protect the articles after publication. The pages are not supposed to be edited anymore after publication, and at the same time vandalism would be very negative for the Journal in the eye of researchers. At the same time we want the articles to be editable by the Wikiversity community, and this seems to us the best option. Is it possible (acceptable) to semi-protect the articles as they are published? Let me know. All the best, Taketa (discusscontribs) 17:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Where is Flagged Revisions when we need it? Seriously, I think the extension exists and it might be useful. The idea is that the default displayed page is an approved version. but users can edit a "pending" revision, or something like that. Worth investigating.
I would go further, I'd full protect the pages. It's not just vandalism that could be a problem, it could be good faith editing from Randy from Boise.
However, if there is an active community watchlisting all the Journal pages, and getting email notification of all edits to them, semiprotection could be quite adequate.
We are, on the Colloquium, considering a proposal that would make it very easy to provide "Assistant" rights, and any Custodian would be able to provide those rights to someone for very specific usage. The Assistant rights are essentially all Custodian rights, except for the right to create and remove Assistants. I see the WJOM as a managed resource, something I've only pioneered in subspace (and it is then neutrally linked from the mainspace resource page). With community consent, we could have certain special-purpose managed resources in mainspace. To maintain neutrality, others must be able to create forks. So if a Managing Editor or a designee were made an Assistant, they could be allowed to routinely use custodian rights to manage that subspace. Very easy to follow and check. --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Ditto. Also, as you apparently noticed, I've found a way to make the "Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/" part less disturbing to the titles. I'm now making this edit to the rest of the articles. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 17:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. I had tried to figure out how to do it, I'd researched DISPLAYTITLE, but the WP help files weren't clear enough for this old fogie. (I'd thought there must be a way to do it, but didn't actually experiment, didn't have time.) This is going to help with a lot of projects! It has been a common problem! So thanks! --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed it took a considerable amount of experimenting myself in order to get it to work. The secret is that the text in itself must be same as in the title, otherwise it doesn't work. I'm glad it can be of use for other pages Face-smile.svg Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 17:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that the WJOM redirect idea of Abd is a good plan. It would mean that links can be shorter, without having to change the title name. Cheers, Taketa (discusscontribs) 17:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
WJOM would be confusing for any reader that is not familiar with what it means. If we are going to shorten it further, I think that simply Wikiversity Journal would be the best alternative. The day that someone wants to start something like Wikiversity Journal of Biology, we may have moved to a separate domain already. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 17:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Wiver J Med. has been in use. By the way, Mikael did not declare himself Editor-in-Chief, he was declared unanimously by the Editorial board. Part (discusscontribs) 17:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Part. Wiver J Med is probably best, since it is reasonably short, and is also meant to be the journal's official abbreviated title, so any reader should just as well get used to it. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 17:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you created possible problems putting "Wikiversity" in the name. The organization you put together, as it's been set up, is the publisher, not Wikiversity. The publisher is releasing this content to Wikiversity, which is a *host*, not responsible for the content, beyond handling legality. Legally, of course, Wikiversity is the WMF though there is a grey area, "the community" which has operational authority. Right now, I'd vote for J Med. For fun, I just put a redirect in Wikiversity space, Wikiversity:J Med. It takes one to the present journal page in mainspace.
Consider one of the original goals, to provide RS content for the Wikipedias. That cannot be done if control of the content is "wiki." You need that external organization, the publisher. It is publishers that determine RS. That's also why the original approvals were problematic. Not independent. Walled garden, perhaps it could be said. "Peer reviewers" don't determine whether or not something is published, they make recommendations to authors and publishers. Self-published material isn't RS, it's primary source as to the views of the author. Even if the author found a dozen reviewers of the content.
All this can be addressed. Don't take this as shooting down the project. The opposite. I want this to be spectacularly successful. And the concept will be expanded and used for other journals.

--Abd (discusscontribs) 18:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. The goal with the newly created Peer reviewers page is to eventually have a group of peer reviewers that may make recommendations (or at least successfully finding such people for individual topics, without the necessity to have them as any kind of more permanent members), separately from the editorial board (which would correspond the the "publisher"). Hopefully, there will be several editors too to make maintenance of pages. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

This would be the process: the editorial board or an editor receives submissions and decides that an article is of interest and then chooses the peer reviewers. Traditionally, peer reviewers are anonymous. I know lots of people upset with the system, but there are strong reasons for it. The problems are really in management, with the publishers who fail to exercise control, and who, occasionally, have hidden agendas. Pleasing advertisers, for example. Even nonprofits can develop bias.
But the anonymity of reviewers is not the problem. Rather, it would be an editorial problem.
Anonymity of reviewers is important because of independence. In fact, as you may know, the anonymous reviewers are not necessarily independent. But it is a system that more or less works.
The reviewers advise. If an author and reviewer disagree, additional review may be requested. And then the paper is accepted for publication. Already, the author may have submitted the paper as a subpage of the journal page ... or in their user space. On acceptance, which is pre-publication, the paper would be placed in the journal space if not already there, and would be linked as a "prepublication copy, editing invited." This is the normal copy editing done by any publisher, and you will have people who will routinely do it, but this is open to the entire community. Then, when the publishers decide (effectively, that's your editorial board or a managing editor), the paper is "published." At that point it is a specific version that is approved. It may be protected. Alternatively, the journal pages may link to specific versions.... I lean toward protection, at least semipro. As long as there are enough Journal staff watchlisting all the articles, it's safe.
You are using OTRS permissions and uploading review documents to Commons. I'm not sure that's necessary. I do understand the problems you ran into. There may be simpler ways of handling them. (Commons is way crazy about licensing, because of the precautionary principle. We can be much looser here, and still be within WMF policy.) (I don't have any idea why those permissions were uploaded to Commons instead of to here, because they only relate to material here.) --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I will shortly start a separate page for editors, detailing the steps that this category will perform. I will have your ideas of the process in mind while writing this page.
After an email round in the editorial board, Wiver J Med is still the only top-level resource we can agree upon. This is already the name of the journal. In the (unlikely, as I see) event that the greater Wikiversity community will form a consensus against usage of Wikiversity in the publisher name, we can change it at that time.
Indeed we won't upload to Commons unless it involves for example a submitted image that have the potential to be used in multiple Wikimedia projects. I previously had the experience of a Wikiversity-related document being deleted because users in Commons didn't think it was of use.
Can you make the current published articles listed at Wikiversity Journal of Medicine semi-protected now? We have a majority of opinions in the editorial board supporting at least semi-protection of these pages.Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 14:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
He can't, because he's not a custodian. You could ask at WV:RCA, but considering the complexity of what you're trying to do, you should really seek out some opinions from the community at the colloquium, rather than asking Abd. Sorry to interrupt, but needed to be said. --SB_Johnny talk 00:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, SBJ. I thought I'd mentioned to Michael I'm not a custodian. A guideline on the issue is needed, I'd say, because the idea runs against standard practice. There are various possible solutions other than simple protection. --Abd (discusscontribs) 01:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Mathonius referred me to you, so I assumed you were a current custodian. I should not assume. Sincerely, Taketa (discusscontribs) 14:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


I've reviewed the history of this, though not every bit of it. As far as I've seen, it was not that a community decided a medical journal was needed and put together an organization which then chose Mikael. Mikael saw the need and gathered the community. Naturally, he gathered those who supported him. That is leadership. However, it doesn't demonstrate community consensus. It probably will, if we do this right. On Wikiversity, as to content, we aim for high consensus. Not as to the content itself, because education is diverse, but as to organization. We allow fringe content or even more outside the mainstream, as long as it is not misrepresented.

Really, we are not about content, but about educational process. People matter. Mikael is learning, among other things, leadership. How to handle apparent "opposition," for example.

I feel in many ways like a Jimbo of Wikiversity Journal, but as seen in the Timeline page, the idea was not completely new. With high consensus, do we in practice mean like reaching out to as many Wikiversity editors as possible and ask for their opinion? Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 18:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps. That's a way to approach it. Wikipedia settled for "rough consensus," and, in my opinion, created a lot of very difficult problems as a result. Rough consensus is necessary for immediate decisions, but .... if stability and neutrality are important, it can break down badly.
Mikael, you took the first steps, and they were thus colored by your experience (and lack of experience). This is all perfectly natural, for someone developing leadership. Some people will go on and dominate the entire organizational history. When they die or lose interest, it frequently dies or becomes a fossil, living or otherwise. It will be limited by their identity. (Which can be amazing, but ... also limited.)
So the next level of leadership is to involve a broader community, and in my training, identifying leaders is part of the task of creating an organization. The originator will commonly step aside having found a leader. These organizations can become effectively immortal (i.e., relatively so). There is no particular limit. Right now, as far as I see, your activity is crucial to the Journal. My suggestion to you is to delegate, spread this out, make yourself unnecessary. While you are still around to help!
It's a test of purpose.
Practical response to your question: Yes, we will take this to the community at large, but, first, I roughly represent a faction of Wikiversity users, aligned with the founders of Wikiversity, who had ideals of high diversity. I'm deliberately identifying possible objections, to provide an opportunity to address concerns that might arise in the future. Wikis often don't do this. It's all about now. And quick (wiki), please. We don't have time to chit-chat about this!
You are welcome to discuss any issue here on my Talk page. The issues may also be discussed on Talk:Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. That is, we seek to create local consensus. For most resources, that is totally enough. However, it's desired to have something stable here. That's not ordinary, it's extraordinary. So how do we do it?
(By the way, you had local consensus until I noticed the page titles in mainspace. I don't know why nobody else pinged you about that. We still have a lot of these crazy resource names on Wikiversity, there was almost zero discipline in the first days, and pagename policy never settled. Wikipedia is flat. We aren't.)
With broader consensus, with the full support of the community. Let's see what we find among ourselves and anyone else who notices. My talk page is seen by quite a few custodians, for example.
When do we decide to expand the discussion? (I call it "escalating.") Again, the norm on wikis is that someone gets a bug, gets impatient, and takes it to an RfC or something like that. Prematurely, and large communities typically are uninformed, and mostly won't make themselves informed. They need clear preparation, presentation of arguments, etc. Coherence. Otherwise, it's knee-jerk. Which can then come down either way, often depending on the biases of the first commentors. Get some popular editor, BigShot, saying "no way, this violates WP:XMT, ridiculous!" and a host of comments will show up, "No say, per BigShot."
So, patience. We will see that this didn't take long, when we look at it. How long would you want this Journal to be active, alive, contributing? --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I would indeed like others to eventually take up my current activities, remaining a guide in the continued existence of the project. A next step in this sense is to make one page for the editors (corresponding to the current peer reviewer page, whereof at least one editor may take on increased responsibilities until practically (and then officially) being the next editor-in-chief.
There is also an idea of splitting this journal to an entire new Wikimedia project. However, I'm thinking that if it doesn't work as a project in Wikiversity, it will probably not succeed as a separate project either. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The resource name[edit]

Wikiversity in the name is redundant on Wikiversity. However, maybe it is needed. My first impression is "I don't like it." It is not a "Wikiversity project." It's Mikael's project, or a project of the working group that named Mikael, not "Wikiversity." It is hosted on Wikiversity, which is a bit like a university library or full archive of all university work -- including student papers, etc.

While we might get consensus here for some sort of approval, what if some disagree? Is approval really needed? A great deal has already been done without it. What I think we can find consensus for is the concept of a managed project, which is not about WJM or Mikael, but about the general principle of managed resources. Key to managed resources is that the manager(s) do not *own* the topic, just a page on the topic and subpages of it. That is where Wikipedia cannot have managed resources, though they have done it with Wikiprojects, specifically Featured Article coordinator was basically King for a time.

We can fork topics. We want the access to be rigorously neutral. The only reliable indicator of neutrality is high consensus.

Interwiki links that start with [[Wikiversity: already have Wikiversity in the name. So Journal of Medicine would work. Or JMed, or J Med which are easily understandable, which WJM (JM) or Jom (WJoM) are not, they just don't work for me.

We should seek high consensus on this, because it becomes a nuisance to maintain a pile of redirects so that they point to the final target. There will be some work on the existing redirects to pages underneath Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. Let's do it once, right (or the best we can find). --Abd (discusscontribs) 18:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I would definitely want the project to be (and be viewed as) a project that belongs to all. After all, I wouldn't have wanted to start editing Wikipedia in the first place if it "belonged" to Jimbo. For example, the criteria for applying to join the editorial board are certainly up for community discussion as well. These are mainly intended to preserve the possibility for authors to keep their works confidential until publication, but whether applicants really have to disclose their real names to other members of that group can very well be up for community discussion.
Regarding the name, I still strongly prefer keeping a Wikiversity in the project, since Wikiversity Journal of Medicine is the official name of the journal. It may seem redundant as long as articles are located here, but once articles are used outside Wikimedia, it would be confusing if the name "Journal of Medicine" showed up, since it could refer to any journal of medicine. For this purpose of consensus, do you think more people will join this discussion here, or perhaps we can introduce it at a more centralized page? Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Anyhow, it's bedtime for me now, but I'll return tomorrow. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't know if you will see this, but sleep well. Maybe something will come to you by the time you awaken. --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you sir[edit]

I was very sad since I put so much work into trying to make the information clear and organized. Thank you very much.Derenek (discusscontribs)

You are welcome. Thanks for the opportunity to take a stand for Wikiversity and academic freedom. Making your ideas clear and organized will help you, and maybe, if you learn to do this well, it will help others. There is no obligation, but watch what Dave and others do. Our goal is to make Wikiversity safe for learning. Erasing the work of a student (or professor! it happens!) doesn't foster learning, it discourages it, and our goal is education, which includes learning by doing. Learning does not insist on "right" and "wrong." We can learn from mistakes, most prominently our own mistakes, but also the mistakes of others. This is what makes Wikiversity so special. Wikipedia simply is not the place for it. You are not blocked anywhere, now, but be very careful. It is really easy to think you are right and to edit Wikipedia in ways that would get you blocked. If you want to edit there, ask me! Learning to work on the wikis (all of them!) is educational. So we will help you. I'm blocked on Wikipedia, I know the ropes, and that is a very long story. I have many times advised others how to avoid that outcome, and it works. Save your account there for when it can be useful, and there will be those opportunities.
Meanwhile, enjoy. And help others when you see the opportunity. Pass it along. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I was once the CEO of that site. I left long before it started doing the shady stuff it's doing now. I just copy pasted it from my linked in, so I should have streamlined it quite a bit more b4 I posted it. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Derenek (talkcontribs) .)

Okay, how to "wiki." You are, here, responding to what I wrote on your user talk page. Generally, response to a comment should go on the page where the comment was made. If I have commented on your talk, your talk page will be on my watchlist, I have my preferences set up that way, and almost all experienced wiki users do this. If I want to get your attention specially, I can also put your user name in my comment, like User:Derenek. That should ping you. In this way, conversations are on a single page and can be followed.
As to that site, you put promotional material for them on your user page. So you have that on your Linked In page. If they are "doing shady stuff," maybe it's not so smart to associate yourself with them if you don't have to. Yes, CEO sounds good, and you are into sounding good. But that can backfire, taken too far. If someone checks out the company (I did), well, you know what I found. --Abd (discusscontribs) 00:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


Yeah, I can understand how things wold look with Harrington. Back in the mid 1990's when I first started with them, they were sending out pamphlets and brochures to every soldier in USArEUR (US Army Europe). It seemed a good way to do school, we could just send in correspondence while we were deployed into Bosnia. Then, sometime in the 2000's it turned out they were actually not even doing what they claimed. I think the people running it are still in jail since it was mainly US servicemembers that they screwed. However, the textbooks were still textbooks, and the tests were apparently stolen from another college...

I'm definitely taking your advice though and keeping my personal info on here to a minimum. Thanks for your understanding.Derenek (discusscontribs)

This is about a comment made on User talk:Derenek. Sure. Some diploma mills are blatant, and provide no education, they are pure send-us-money-and-we-send diploma, and their customers have to be held responsible for what is obviously fake. Some actually do provide structure, and the students may do real work. However, a degree from an unaccredited university may help get a job if nobody checks. And then can backfire if someone checks later. Whether you did the work or not.
If you were ripped off, you were ripped off. You don't then, have a real PhD. You have a fake one even if you did all the work and even if you are the smartest egg on the planet.
I have no degree. I went to Cal Tech, sat with Richard P. Feynman in physics for two years. Those two years, the textbook was created from films of those lectures. I never graduated, went on to do many, many things. Recently, though, I got involved again with science, in a field that has been considered fringe. It has actually turned the corner, and I was recently published in a peer-reviewed journal, with an article that may prove quite important. From what I write, I am often called "Dr. Lomax," by real PhDs. I correct them. I have no degree. They assume I must have a doctorate if I write as I do. That comes from spending five years in discussions with the top scientists on the planet in the field, from making lots of mistakes and learning from them. I made no claims, but I am now being called, by others, one of the most knowledgeable people on the planet, as to this field. In some ways, that is possibly correct, but in other ways, no. I don't have the depth and probably never will. I'm really new, and I can be like the child pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. That does not take a terribly smart kid. Just one with eyes and a mouth. --Abd (discusscontribs) 00:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Derenek is using Wikimedia sites to host his pseudoscientific thesis. Just look at wikipedia:Vortex Science and all that he's done here and elsewhere. Original research doesn't belong on WMF sites like he's done.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, I did not dox Derenek. He had his full name on his user page when it was still available. He has it on every file he's uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. He's using this site and others to push his woo.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Ryulong, Wikiversity allows original research. We are not an encyclopedia, which has very good reasons for prohibiting it. We are an educational institution, and students and teachers doing original research is an essential educational activity. (Our written policy was naive and has never matched the reality, and it is the reality which you have encountered. Original research is, in fact, allowed with little restriction if framed in certain ways, i.e., as an attributed essay or in user space.) I looked at the user's contributions here and elsewhere. Do you think I'd have made a steward request without doing that first?
Yes, I've seen the user's self-disclosures. I'd be careful about revealing real name information anyway. The way you did it stunk. It is standard wiki courtesy to refer to users by their user name, not their real name. There are exceptions. They never apply when the comments are hostile. He has now requested deletion of his user page, and it was deleted. He is responsive, and, my guess, the disruption elsewhere will stop. If not, well, we have not made it worse.
Wikiversity is a welcoming wiki, where educational resources may be developed, and where learning-by-doing may be practiced, in safety. Part of standing for that is defending users who come here, often as refugees from other wikis, from unnecessary attack. You are welcome here, not only for developing educational resources yourself, but for maintaining site neutrality. If you believe that this user's work is being presented in a misleading way, by all means, stand for neutrality. However, your stand appears to be that his self-expression is contrary to Wikimedia Foundation policy, and that "woo" cannot be studied. It is not contrary to policy and we can study what skeptics and pseudoskeptics call woo, pseudoscience, fringe science, or any topic. If you maintain that suppressive stand, you may find us to be resistant. --Abd (discusscontribs) 01:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
He's literally posted his thesis on the English Wikipedia, 3 times on the Wikimedia Commons, and twice here. Is that what Wikiversity, or any of those other sites, are for?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The posting on Wikipedia was inappropriate, and it will be deleted, it's certain. On Commons, that was legitimate, or at least arguably so, it was merely three versions of the same pdf. Yes, you created a deletion discussion there. The two older versions will either be deleted, or, better merged with the current one, which will likely be kept, though Commons can be a tad ragged. Wikiversity is for this, yes, it fits our mission, about which you appear to have no concept. If you want to learn, this is the place. Is that what you want? --Abd (discusscontribs) 01:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Test question[edit]

Hey Abd is there an easy way to create quizzes on Wikiversity? Or banks of test questions? Doc James (discusscontribs) 20:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Found it Help:Quiz Doc James (discusscontribs) 20:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Broubaker Polynomials[edit]

I just saw your comment about the recursion relation, and strongly suspect that you are correct. Please give me a chance to verify and I will revert all my edits.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 16:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct about the recursion relation for Boubaker Polynomials (sorry about the misspelling in the title). Given that the refereed publications have no glaring errors, most of what I intended to write will not be written. What do you think of taking the following steps?

  1. Remove all templates (deletion request and research). We can keep an "under construction" template if you want, but as far as I am concerned, everything on Wikiversity is "under construction", so I vote we remove that template.
  2. Mention the controversy on Wikipedia, but keep it in the last section of the article, and omit any discussion of the controversy on Wikiversity. I strongly suspect that the published articles on the subject are nearly empty of useful content -- stuff any good mathemetician could quickly figure out. But, I lack the credentials to make such a claim. By referencing to the Wikipedia discussion we are maintaining neutrality. I suggest we omit all discussion of this recent controversy on Wikiversity because it was either caused by a vandal imitating a French 'crat, or by said 'crat not on top of his game.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 16:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict with above) I think I already fixed it. Leave your edits, since there has been response. Just agree with the response. You may also use strike-out to indicate a retracted statement. Thanks. The resource is actually being improved (and your error helped, because I had the same question about the polynomials as you did, and simply had not done anything with it yet. When you raised the problem, I then checked more carefully. This is Wikiversity in action, so I suppose we can thank the nominator. He has also nominated the resource on fr.wikiversity for deletion. It's going differently there. Basically, it often happens that users just vote knee-jerk, don't check claims by nominators (a perversion of Assume Good Faith), and so ... decisions are not always sound. We are doing better, I think, we became highly suspicious of *any* Requests for deletion. Why delete when you can move to user space, when a resource, even if "wrong," can be an opportunity for learning, or when original research, of mainspace interest, can become an essay with someone taking personal responsibility for it, all these options?
I imagine a phalanx of busybodies searching a university for Bad Stuff, and trashing it. Bad Idea! Truly a waste of time, in fact. It's Wikipedian thinking, an encyclopedia project is very different, but, even there, there have been long-term users who proposed, as an example, Pure Wiki Deletion. That is essentially blanking rather than page deletion. There was also a proposal for a Junkyard space, "junkyard" being the old recycling concept. Only *illegal* material would actually be deleted.... I think more than half of all Wikipedia disruption would be eliminated, based on our experience here. People don't get nearly as upset about classification -- which can always be improved -- as they do about deletion. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I already explained the deletion request, it should stay until the request is closed. Just standard procedure. As we have already commented in that discussion, we will not normally close it. The nominator may close, at this point, by withdrawing the request (i.e., saying so). Or we can wait. If there is plenty of time, one of us might close as obvious consensus to keep, unless more delete comments show up. It could happen, because I intend to comment on the deletion request on fr.wikiversity, and will point to our discussion. Opposition to this topic has been most highly focused in the French community. It's political.
Attempting to assess notability and such things as novelty, etc., it's a huge can of worms. These tend to be knee-jerk opinions, not objective. Mostly, we manage to avoid these train wrecks. They still happen because users who are basically Wikipedians, with Wikipedian thinking, show up. What I wish is that they would show up and improve the resources, or at least attempt to. Instead of claiming that a dead link or slow link is some sort of sign of bad faith, find a good link or a better one or document the problem. ("link times out [date]" could be added, for example.) --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The mention of controversy on Wikipedia was fine. We will often link to relevant Wikipedia articles. In this case, the article was deleted, so linking to the last AfD seems appropriate. I left that, but reorganized the text a bit. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I have [...] many logged actions[edit]

I was curious about your assertion on the French Wikiversity, and I saw that this tool is not published here. So, you gave me the idea to create a user box (eg: Template:User logged actions) where you could show your 709 logged actions without mentioning it (I can't use it myself here so I let you choose if it's worth creating it). JackPotte (discusscontribs) 18:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Ah, what a story that page tells if one knows how to read it. I do show most of my logged actions on User:Abd. That is, I show the logs for blocks, deletion, and page protection. I also show edits under protection, which are not logged as such (they appear as ordinary edits).
I have not been an administrator since 2011. I was also indef blocked for two years, from 2011 to 2013. If I need to show logged actions, that would be a good way to do it. Now, about Boubaker polynomials. I'm starting to collect evidence. Basically, yes, there is a user who was self-promoting, or promoting his friend. However, then, police riot. Unsupportive and suppressive response has two effects. Most sane people will just walk away. That is, in fact, the response that the Wikipedia community expects, they think that a person who finds out that a wiki community doesn't want them will just leave it alone.
However, Wikipedia was presented as "the encylopedia that anyone can edit." And some people take that seriously. So they conclude that they are faced with a bunch of over-controlling idiots. And some people have high ego strength, and will not allow others to dominate them. So they resist. Creating sock puppets is a very normal response, obvious. It is not what a truly sophisticated user is likely to do, though some do end up doing it. Consider Russavia, for example.
Basically, they will say "You can't stop me." So it ends up being a game of w:Whac-a-Mole. Which, it turns out, is far more fun for the mole than for the kid with the ban hammer. That hammer does not actually hurt, one finds out quickly.
Standard Wikipedia responses, in some cases, create the problem they are designed to stop.
Is this necessary? Encyclopedias are very different from universities. Material that might be written as part of a class can be of many different levels of notability or reliability. In some cases, one may write something about total nonsense or that is total nonsense and it can still be educational. What if a student writes a contemporary w:Jabberwocky? Would we delete it? Before I started working with Wikiversity, the answer would be, probably, Yes. This is what I'm the most proud of: with any possibility at all of a resource being of value to the user, we only delete very carefully. We may move the resource in to User space, where we usually can then forget about it. Or we use Template: Proposed deletion which gives three months for anyone to remove the template. We use Template:delete for speedy deletion, uncontroversial, typically spam or illegal content. And the administrative stance here is that the job of custodians is to support users, to help them do what they want, within policy.
Would this be appropriate for an encyclopedia project? Probably not. However, this is what is so often missing on the wikipedias: supportive administration and community. If someone creates an inappropriate page on wikipedia, how about encouraging them to use Wikiversity instead? They can create a page here, and take all the time they need to develop it, to get help, to improve it. We no longer delete "encyclopedic articles," as such, if they might be of value to the user or others. Then, later, if they want a Wikipedia page, they can get the advice of Wikipedians, pointing to a draft here. I have intervened on fr.wikiversity to support this for other languages than English. Why should English users be more privileged than French ones? As well, I'm not infrequently called upon to advise users. For English users, I can recommend en.wikiversity without hesitation. How about francophones? I'd like to know, and this discussion there may tell me.
I suspect that something like this process will happen eventually with Boubaker polynomials. We do not decide, on Wikiversity, about notability. We do insist on neutrality, but in attributed subpages, essays are not required to be neutral. (The "fact" is that such and such a person has written an opinion, which they are responsible for.) So one can create a subpage that is a Wikipedia draft, and it can be "owned." My draft! If I don't want anyone else to touch it, it could be in my user space, and custodians here will normally respect author rights fully there. For example, very unlikely that anyone will touch User:White Fennec/Rebuttal, unless to improve it. It would not be deleted except upon that user's request, which is impossible, because White Fennec was globally locked. By policy, an abusive lock. I.e., global locks are not bans (though they are used to enforce global bans). Global ban policy requires specific conditions for a ban, and those have not been met for the person allegedly behind White Fennec. White Fennece had not edited cross-wiki, and is blocked only on, where he had no edits. I know exactly how this happens, it's abusive. So the only effect of the global lock was to prevent Wikversity content development, but Wikiversity was never asked and was also never informed, I found out accidentally yesterday. But nobody enforces the policy and even bringing it up can be hazardous for one's wiki-health.
This is quite new: global locks disable all email through the wiki. You cannot email a globally locked user, unless you already have the direct email. Why is that? This came shortly after the new WMF global bans, and some substantial level of rebellion against them, turns out that at least one wiki doesn't like having a popular administrator banned out of the blue, no warning, and no explanation other than "violation of the TOS." When, very likely, there was no TOS violation, there was something else, political.
The WMF is doing what it believes is best for the wikis. I trust that. However, the WMF also has a history of neglecting community advice, creating unnecessary disruption. It does have the right of decision as to its own actions, but it always protected itself against lawsuit by leaving possibly legally-actionable decisions to the communities. Without ever discussing this with the communities, it has obviously abandoned that position, whereas the TOS explicitly prohibits a global ban without the full global ban process being followed. In other words, the WMF itself is not following the TOS. I do have a pretty good idea why they did what they did, and sometimes it would be wise. And sometimes not, sometimes very unwise. Do we care? That is a question, not a claim.
As to this case, there is no global ban. There has been no move to create one. There is merely a series of account locks, without public discussion. Happens all the time. The creator of fr:Recherche:Polynômes de Boubaker resource is not blocked or banned, nor has this user been warned. Nor, in fact, has the user been informed of the deletion discussion. --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, just like this mathematical work, my personal story on the wikis has begun with a newbie error. Actually our rules are so long to assimilate that it could be considered as a professional job, and only a few people are qualified to evolve here like a duck takes to water.
So of course I had the idea of warning the initial publisher of this work in French, but to tell the truth the previous clashes have finally afraid me to endure anymore sock-puppets menace in a near future, and that might be a shame but I'm still not convinced. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 20:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Remember what it was like to be a newbie. Some newbies have horrific experiences, and sometimes they become easily convinced there is bias against them. Sometimes they are even right. Often, not. But who takes the time to explain this to them? I do, when a situation comes up. On-wiki or by email.
Jack, I was a prison chaplain, dealing with some people who had been violent at one time, convicted of murder. When I say that if people are treated with respect, they tend to return it, I'm speaking from broad experience. It does not always work. But usually! Yes, there are stories of threats, and perhaps you have experience it. However, people inclined to issue threats do not generally issue them to people who are trying to help them. I will not support illegal activity, but it is mostly not my business. If someone does something illegal on-wiki, I will confront it, but I will use the best means. That is, means likely to defuse the situation, not make it worse. Someone making threats is typically offended! We have the idea, quite understandably, that nobody should be threatening anyone, so if someone threatens, they are Bad and Wrong, and if we help them, we are enabling Bad and Wrong behavior. However, this attitude never succeeds in making peace in the world, it perpetuates conflict. I have credibility with the "Boubaker team," whatever it is. They will probably listen to me, and my intention is to show them how to be successful in what is actually possible. It is quite obvious that by pushing as hard as they pushed, they have made it more difficult to get what they want, not easier. So I will show them how to be efficient. And I've seen this process work, many times. Disruption stopped. Cooperation began.
You are not required to participate. I do recommend, however, that you withdraw the RfD here, because it is obvious where it is going, but that is up to you. (To withdraw it, just comment "withdrawn by nominator." at the bottom. I will take care of the rest, or someone else will, i.e., we will formally close it. We can't do that without your consent (though a neutral user, i.e., one who has not commented, might). If you do this soon, it may avoid problems.) --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll think about it. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 21:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent Changes[edit]

See Special:Contributions/FrankyLeRoutier. Changes were not by original user. Not sure if there's any content there that would be relevant to your recent efforts, but wanted you to be aware of the changes. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, interesting. This is not good. White Fennec is globally locked, and FrankyLeRoutier is very unlikely to be an alternate account of White Fennec. "Maintenance," my foot. I am in contact with the person whom White Fennec was accused of being, that is the mathematician Boubaker, whose openly acknowledged account was Mmbmmmbm, which is not locked. I've been tracking down what happened and documenting it, it's an incredible can of worms. Because of bad behavior by a faction of users supporting Boubaker, the content about his polynomials has been excluded from the encyclopedia projects, in spite of being, by guidelines, notable. And there are charges of racism, and countercharges of the race card being played.
What is becoming clear is that this was a police riot. What could easily have been handled, if policies had simply been followed, wasn't. However, I'm still researching, that is not complete.
It takes days to do this work, that's why it is so rarely done. However, doing the research leads me to a far deeper understanding of what works and what doesn't work. Learning by doing.
I will move those pages, I'll think about whether or not to move them to my user space or to the study pages. For the Wikipedia portion of this study, Boubaker polynomials, it is useful to have drafts from various points in time, because they can show what was being considered in an AfD. It would be better to have the original articles, transwikied, and I've been thinking of asking for those.
Transwiki to Wikiversity, if done way back in 2007-2009, at the peak of the disruption, would have defused the whole thing, and, my guess, there would now be articles on this topic on and Instead, it was practically a pitched battle, and that still is being remembered. There were, on, three AfDs. The first was very normal, the topic simply was not notable yet. The second was a train wreck, with four or five administrators pushing for deletion on, and a host of SPAs, probably socks of two but maybe more users, on the other. And it never should have happened. I had assumed that the page had been recreated. It had, but had been (properly) speedy deleted. But an admin thought it had been improved, and undeleted it without discussion. That set up the second AfD, and the topic really wasn't quite ready. The AfD should have been speedy closed as a recreation, snowing delete, as it was, but that was not done, it was left open, and that is when swarms of highly opinionated users poured in.
And then there is the third AfD, in 2009. By then there was plenty of reliable source. The third AfD was set up by the same administrator undeleting the page into user space, and then moving it into mainspace. The admin did not go through undeletion process, both times. He's still an administrator, and as far as I can tell, while someone told him he'd been "fooled," he wasn't fooled. He is a mathematician and he understood the article, I assume. Meanwhile, "team Boubaker" gets blamed. Team Boubaker was radically naive, unskilled, with no understanding of guidelines and policies. Very common for experts, in fact. They imagine that the projects have something to do with truth and would surely welcome their expertise, and when the reverse happens, they may well think there is some conspiracy against them. I've seen that response from a Nobel Prize winner, in fact.
I don't know where the study will go at this time. I've collected sources on the polynomials up to the list that was on our 2011 version. There are now hundreds more hits in Google scholar. Where the idea came from that this was a hoax, I don't know, but that allegation was made a number of times in discussions.
What I expect to have in place is a set of resources that will allow encyclopedia users to see thorough research into sourcing for this topic, as well as thorough coverage of the wiki history. There was disruption, but it was not only on one side. There was incivility from "team Boubaker" and from administrators and other users. There was provocation and punishment. I have not yet see clear evidence of racism, but racism can be subtle, and what I have not seen is that the charges, such as they are, were taken seriously. I'm still looking at the "race card" charges and they are thin. It's a mess.
But I don't think it will be difficult to clean up.
Right now, the BP resource here is a sprawling mess, but this is just the initial appearance. It will be cleaned up, focused, and presented so as to be readily usable. I'm advising Boubaker to stay hands off on the encyclopedia projects; I've invited him to register here, to advise us, if he's willing. He is, in fact, astonishingly prolific in his publication work, and he's supervising PhD students, etc. I've suggested that he assign a student to work with us. We'll see where that goes.
We respect expertise, we don't have harmful COI policies and practices (we simply want any COI to be disclosed, if there are problems). The math in our resource is probably correct, but there is a lot more. If I have it rightm, the most useful polynomials are apparently not the original Boubaker polynomials, but what are called "modified Boubaker polynomials," developed within the first year. That's not currently explained.
We have much more freedom to explain these things cogently and completely, than is possible on the encyclopedias, particularly with a new topic like this, with little tertiary source. --Abd (discusscontribs) 03:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sport/Volleyball/Asian Women's Volleyball Championship[edit]

Hi Abd!

I added the prod delete because there are prods scheduled for October 10, 2015, on several sections of this resource and another similar resource, and the editor hasn't contributed since May 23-24, 2015. Each of these proposed deletes show up on the Category:Proposed_deletions. Is there any easy way to fix these in the tables? Or, should we just leave them for now? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look. This user or set of users has been erratic. Mostly, they have not communicated, but did respond a little and did begin to work within the space set up for them. --Abd (discusscontribs) 00:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I removed all those prods. The goal is to establish communication with them, but at this point, prods are premature. This is a resource, a collection of scores. I know what it does to my mind when I do that kind of work. I learn things that can be hard to express. But they are real. --Abd (discusscontribs) 02:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

How are you doing?[edit]

Hi Abd,

How are you doing? Still not much activity on Dutch wikiverity :-) I have started a learning project about Scratch in my own namespace. Unfortunately, it is hard to find Dutch people who want to participate. Hope you are fine.


Tim, Timboliu (discusscontribs) 14:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


I got tired just scrolling down that discussion thread. I'm tempted to blame the wiki vandals for not creating enough havoc at Wikipedia, thus leaving any abusive vandal fighters with too little to they start harassing editors. Good luck! --JWSchmidt (discusscontribs) 16:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This was with reference to [6] my comment on this user's talk page. --Abd (discusscontribs) 18:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Your choice, JWSchmidt. However, this is a major piece of the "wiki problem." Wiki = quick. But the design of Wikipedia requires consensus, and finding consensus isn't quick, unless all involved are already fully informed, and tl;dr may mean that the user doesn't want to be fully informed, they already know enough to have a position, so .... Delete, "nonsense," or whatever.
You do know that these were not vandals or spammers, right? -- even though they were called that. They did make mistakes, as often happens with new and young users, but these were not prevalent, at all.
The steward, if you look further, is globally locking as many as 500 accounts per month or more. Almost all of these are spammers, there are very, very few exceptions (and when there was an exception, he fixed it promptly.) His goal here is not to harass anyone, but he doesn't understand how his actions will appear to the users affected. Those users were creating pages outside of community expectations (but not as TOS violations). The user created multiple accounts, which is not a TOS violation, the TOS is actually explicit about that. They did not use the multiple accounts in the prohibited way, not initially. It remains unclear if there is more than one user or not, but definitely, there were many accounts created by a single user, just not necessarily all of them.
So your attitude, that the steward needs to have more havoc to handle, so that he won't "harass editors," is not based in fact. I can understand the impression. However, it is just not so. The problem is elsewhere, in a lack of policy that can handle a diverse community, and we do have some level of the problem here. Some of these users were locally blocked, it was, I think, always for "copyvio," of a relatively harmless kind. I.e., they needed a template for the pages they were legitimately creating, so they copied it from Wikipedia. But these users don't know how to communicate, at least not in English. It is questionable how much they understand.
And we don't have, in our registration process, any clear pointer to Don't Do This Or You Will Be Blocked. In this case, great effort was made (by me and Dave) to communicate with these users, but the steward did not know that, what he saw was easily understood as cross-wiki abuse, and a casual glance would make it seem "massive." In fact, it was quite confined. I do not know if we would have eventually succeeded in setting up communication, but ... the steward shut it down. And doesn't care what impact this has here.
To handle this while still protecting the other wikis from disruption would not be difficult, but if stewards have no understanding of Wikiversity and what we foster here, they won't even understand the issue. And that can be seen in that discussion. However ... you'd have to read it. You would have to care. I think you gave up caring a long time ago. But you were still bitter, because of all the Wrong.
I'm very interested in how to manifest caring without making people with other points of view Wrong. That is what can actually create stability, because genuine consensus is stable. Otherwise, we are teetering on an edge. There are occasional impacts here. We could ignore them. After all, who cares about some silly girls in the Philippines who happen to love volleyball and want to compile scores and make nice-looking pages? --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Second Life[edit]

I've had a look at this issue and it seems Wikimedia wikis are quite out of date. I've created two templates for use on this kind of image - {{Second Life screenshot}} and more importantly {{Second Life copyright}}. Could you have a look at them and let me know what you think? Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. They look decent to me.
There is some irony here. Our WV:EDP was created by JWSchmidt. He got a bit cranky, having been indef blocked for years, long story, the short version is that what he called Wikipedian Disease hit Wikiversity. One of the symptoms, as it showed up here, was the loss of educational purpose as primary. With a certain set of users, "enforcing" WMF non-free policy is more important. There is no risk to the WMF from non-free content, the precautionary principle on Commons arises from the Commons promise (and official WMF goal) that all content is free for re-use, including for commercial usage. That could easily be handled, as you know, by tagging on Commons, so that all content hosted as non-free is "machine readable" as such. This would, in one fell swoop, eliminate much of the contention on Commons, but ... I think there are some who like that contention. It gets ridiculous, such as the disallowance of "bystander selfies," because the bystander supposedly owns the copyright, or could own the copyright, and is unknown. WMF legal opinion was that the subject in a bystander selfie, who retains the image (not the bystander), is the owner, or is at least a co-owner, but .... some Commons users become copyright sticklers, and care not if content is damaged.
Yes, I support your "Non-Free Wiki" project, but it would create an entire new structure, duplicating what Commons already has, whereas simply adding a new feature to Commons would require no software changes. (If it was desired to modify the display of non-free content, that could require new software).
You know and I know why it is difficult to do that on Commons. Wikis begin as highly innovative structures, but rapidly become ultraconservative. Yet basic original concepts (such as civility) suffer. That's part of "conservative," in this case. If I've always been able to insult other users, especially "trolls," I want to be able to continue. This really got interesting on when Jimbo blocked Bishonen for blatant incivility. It appears that Jimbo caved. Bishonen missed an opportunity to take a stand for civility. All she would have had to do is say "thanks" for the two-hour block. Instead ... we have wiki history. --Abd (discusscontribs) 13:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


Please stop canvassing for input on Wikiversity talk:Deletions. You are welcome to post an announcement in the Colloquium. Seeking directed input is inappropriate. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Policy? I know that certain users are highly interested in a topic under discussion there. We have no policy prohibiting notifying them. I did not direct input. One user, because of his history, I suggested he be careful. That's about it. I don't know anyone else interested. If you do, invite them to comment. You are welcome to post on the Colloquium. Dave, you have become hostile, and involved. I highly recommend backing off.
However, I will take this issue to the Colloquium. It's worthy of discussion there. I will not solicit input in any way that I can reasonably expect you would consider violation of the policy you imagine.
(In Wikiversity history, many discussions were afflicted by canvassed participation, only the canvassing took place on IRC. I pointed it out. Nothing was done. Apparently, it depends on whose ox is being gored. Canvassing afflicted results because, contrary to policy, votes were counted, it was a permanent custodian vote, and if one deprecated obviously canvassed votes, the custodian would have passed. One of our crats ignored the problem and closed with failure. You could guess which one, he is one who often ignored anything requiring some thought and perhaps looking at evidence.) --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

And at more depth[edit]

From w:WP:Canvassing

In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.
However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.

With the discussion that Dave is talking about, I made a proposal on Wikiversity talk:Deletions, in March 2014. No opposition to the proposal appeared, but only an opposition to something that I had not done -- though I said I would do it if there was no opposition.

So the objection was purely procedural, on the face, about how consensus is formed on wikis. As nobody had opposed the proposal itself, as there had been opportunity for discussion, the other day I did the next step: I actually made the change.[7] This was reverted by Dave, with the same non-objection (i.e., only objection to making a change, allegedly without discussion and consensus.)[8] In fact, if one reviews the history of Wikiversity policies and guidelines, they have been routinely changed without prior discussion. What I had done in raising the question first was, then, more cautious than standard practice. So, there being an objection, even if only procedural, the first step in extended discussion process was begun. I notififed interested users, because prior experience showed that they were not just going to show up, they may be completely unaware of the discussion. Anyone can do this. This is not, at this stage, a vote. It is a collection of evidence, opinions, and arguments. There is zero harm in "canvassing" at this point, harm would only come if a biased sample is then used to claim "consensus," anything other than in an operating, temporary way.

Now, when my change was reverted as not having been discussed (even though it had been raised on the Talk page for a year), I knew of three users interested in the topic, all with experience and live concerns. I notified them, two by edits to talk pages.

  • [9] This was originally written about damage to a resource where the user had used a Commons file, deleted after more than three years' delay. I then added a note about the discussion. He has extensive experience with the problem, as his subsequent comment on Talk:Deletions showed. This is the kind of participation we need: informed, experienced.
  • [10] mentions the discussion and invites comment. This user has long been highly concerned about excessive deletions, and is one of the major founders of Wikiversity. I do not know if he will comment or not, nor what he will say.
  • And I pinged a Commons administrator who, on the talk page of that user, had commented on my remarks there, and who has high experience with the issue of moves to Commons and damage caused by them.pinged User:Green Giant, and, again, I do not know if he will comment or not, nor do I know what his comment will be.

These were selected as being users with experience or interest, but not directed as to how to "vote," and "canvassing" is about voting. It "interferes" with consensus process on en.wikipedia to the extent that numbers of votes matter, as distinct from arguments. In other words, it is an open secret on en.wikipedia that, contrary to guidelines and policies, votes do count. That's the problem, not canvassing per se. If canvassing attracts more informed comment, it is serving a positive purpose, and, by the Wikipedia guideline, is not disruptive. Encouraging informed users, especially experts, to participate in discussion, is normal deliberative process.

I do find an apparent warning from a custodian chilling. Hence I do need to take this to the Colloquium. The warning, not the issue at the Deletions page, though it may obviously bring some attention there.

If no more comments appear there, this is what I will do: I will again make the change, and I will claim rough consensus, even though it is only at stage 2 of consensus process (agreement from another user without opposition). Then, if there is opposition to the change, I will go to the Colloquium, or some of the issues being raised may require a WV:Community Review. For years, improvement to Wikiversity guidelines and policies has been stonewalled, prevented, and often by custodians, usually the only ones watching those pages. Meanwhile, if it serves them, custodians have often changed policy pages ad-hoc. The former WV:Deletion policy proposed policy page did go to a vote on the attached talk page, and was changed to "guideline" in 2012. At that point, I was blocked, and if one looks back at the incident, it was that I objected to an established policy page being deprecated to "proposed" based on a technicality, that neglected that what the page described was clearly policy, it was followed, and had been since very early in Wikiversity history. It had simply never gone for a vote. Now, was the community notified of the vote on the attached talk page? I have not checked. My guess is not.

However, most of it represents current practice, though there are deviations. The issue of NowCommons was never discussed. It was simply added by a custodian, probably based on the parallel Wikipedia process. I had worked extensively on the Deletion policy page, and had never noticed this speedy deletion criterion as a problem. It's common on wikis: if one doesn't see a problem, one will go along with what another has proposed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. However, later, when I began participation at Wikiversity again, I stumbled across some serious problems, that were tedious and difficult to fix, because of local deletion of uploads here, when moved to Commons. The problem only appears clearly when the page is deleted on Commons. And as Green Giant has pointed out, Commons administrators cannot see the upload information here if the page has been locally deleted. Deletion hides original license information!

So, wiki procedure: see a problem, fix it. That's the first step. Under normal conditions, if nobody objects to the actual change, done. And lots of changes to policies have been made that way. But, then, eventually, someone decides that policy changes need to go through more complex process, and starts reverting changes merely based on lack of discussion. That, then, makes it far more difficult to make noncontroversial changes! If anyone objects, they can always revert the change and state the objection, but objecting purely on process grounds then creates what I've called the "tyranny of the past," where the past controls the present. I have seen this afflict consensus organizations, seriously, for years (and that was a long-term study of mine). If it is believed that "consensus" is required for change, then, whenever the status quo favors a minority, they can block change, and I've seen this tear consensus organizations apart. En.wikipedia is deeply stuck in this mire. This is an aspect of Wiki studies/Wiki disease.

It remains unclear if there is any opposition to the actual change, at this point. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikiversity proposed policy[edit]

This was clearly based on the Wikipedia policy. This is the top text:
Canvassing is contacting like-minded individuals to coordinate efforts for a pending decision. In general, notifying people of ongoing discussions is perfectly acceptable, provided the intent is to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus and provided it is done indiscriminately (i.e. when done without regard for expected biases). However canvassing done with the intent to influence the outcome of a discussion is considered dishonest because the normal consensus decision-making process may be compromised, and therefore it may be considered disruptive behavior even when other intentions are good.
The problem with the proposed policy is that it requires a judgment of intention. My intention was, since discussion was being required by Dave, to create a discussion, by inviting knowledgeable and experienced users with immediate related concerns. In fact, my edit to the deletion guideline was prompted by discussions with two of them. I do not recall any user ever having expressed an actual support for the deletion of such pages, during a specific discussion. All that can be found is a massive edit to the proposed policy page, that introduced the NowCommons reason, and that specific change was never discussed. I have watched the enforcement of canvassung policy on Wikipedia, it has always been a can of worms. I have seen users blocked for neutral notifications, and, then, there are plenty of notifications that are off-wiki. The solutions described on the proposed policy page don't really work. Yes, canvassed comments can be deprecated. But if decisions are actually made by preponderance of the evidence and cogent argument, canvassing has no negative effect. Most canvassing I've seen on involved article deletion discussions, and it is very common to add a template that says that "this is not a vote." If it is not a vote, how does canvassing harm it? That, then, points to a gap between reality and practice on en.wikipedia. Many closers close based on votes, and it's obvious. There is often no consideration of arguments in the close reason, it is only "consensus is...." So what is "harmed" is a shortcut that many administrators take. Reading the evidence and considering all the arguments, too much work!
Now, if someone I notified -- had I intended to "canvass," I'd have notified dozens or maybe hundreds of users! -- comments, and no opposition appears, it will indeed influence the immediate outcome, but not long-term. I will consider the presence of support, in an open discussion, with no opposition, as "consensus," for the time being. That is, after a decent pause, I would go ahead and make the change, and I would then request it not be reverted unless one is actually opposed to the change itself and is willing to discuss it or at least to explain it. I would consider unexplained revert at that point to be disruptive. I might revert once, requesting explanation (since there is already discussion on the Talk page).
But this is ordinary process. One user with no opposition may make any change on the wiki that is not actually prohibited by policy (and actual practice trumps stated policy). One user supported by another may (normally) prevail against a single opposition, pending wider involvement. So definitely one user supported by another may make a change, and it would take at least two opposing to require escalation, i.e, broader consideration.
However, some custodians eventually come to the position that it is their job to regulate the community, and can lose perspective and balance. It is a hazard of the job. Custodians may intervene in disputes, but intervening unilaterally is involvement. Easily, we lose sight of that. The NowCommons issue was not about that, but there is another deletion issue raised on that Talk page, with a similar history. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


It is customary to welcome users on their talk page rather than editing their user page directly. You may want to correct this. See [11]. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. The user needs some support. --Abd (discusscontribs) 13:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi Abd!

The User mentioned as the topic heading has made some great upgrades to some resources that I've contributed to. But, I received an alert from a friend at Commons that the User has previously run into problems on Wikipedia and two other WMF projects and has now come here. Firstly, as I mentioned the contributions have been great. The only one I've changed back was to return a visual image of the Sun rather than a UV image. I was wondering if you'd keep an eye on the user in case help is needed adjusting to Wikiversity. I believe from the user's work here so far that contributions will be beneficial. I believe your work with others including me who've run amok of Wikipedia has been very positive. Thanks in advance! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitely, keep an eye on the user, but frame this for yourself (and for the user) as supporting him, and guiding him to avoid what will create problems. I will look at contributions here and elsewhere. Users who come here from Wikipedia may run into problems, and, as well, can be followed here by others ready to attack them. Be patient, these users are often traumatized by their experience elsewhere, and may expect the same here. As well, of course, many of them have personality traits that create trouble. Because our mission is learning by doing, we are not Wikipedia, and a piece of our mission might be like therapy, at least in providing opportunities for positive experience. To me, the user is far more important than creating content. I've pinged the user because the user should know that we will assist, and that must include guidance when necessary. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'm looking around. I see a common story. A great read is The Decline of Wikipedia. "In their paper on those findings, the researchers suggest updating Wikipedia’s motto, “The encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” Their version reads: “The encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit.” It used to be that there was a process, it was abusive enough (often just templated, little thought, little caring). Blocking was graduated. Even vandals were warned multiple times, short-blocked, then longer, then indef.
There is no question that the user was making mistakes. The user's communications were strange. However, the user was also making positive contributions. In the old days, a first block that is indef would raise eyebrows. I think it has become routine. So, okay, he can appeal the block, right? Does anyone help him to do that?
Looking at the talk page, he had been editing Featured Picture Candidates, a page that will have high administrative attention. Bad Idea for a Noob. He made some mistakes there and attempted to fix them. He was given a serious warning at 12:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC). He did not edit after that, as far as I can see. Nevertheless, he was indef blocked at 23:36, 11 June 2015.
So, he requested unblock. He did not understand the process. Few do, until they have studied it. The unblock template is not a request to the blocking administrator, ever. It is a request for neutral review. Arguing in it that the block was wrong is always a losing argument. Instead, the reason for the block should be addressed, with clear assurances that it won't happen again. He, in fact, wrote this: [Blocking admin username], please, follow the rules , do not do that again, I promise. Thank you. :) His English may be diffcult. I think he meant two things, requesting the admin to not indef block first block, and then "I will not do that again." However, reviewing admins have very little time. They are overworked. They want to see "no problem," and see it clearly. Any sort of "the block was wrong" will immediately turn them off. "I will not do that again," if not mixed with a complaint, might work, except for one problem. I will not do what again? There had been many problems. (this is one of the problems of accumulating problems and then wham! indef block. The cause is unclear and so the response may be unclear.)
So he got a decline. I always advise waiting a bit. Ask for advice about what do avoid and how. Never make the blocking admin wrong, not unless you are prepared for a very difficult process, that even experts can lose. Wait a bit and be careful. If being blocked is an emergency, you are obsessed and very likely to make more mistakes. First time I was seriously blocked, I waited days before putting up an unblock template. Not only did I want to see what would happen, I notice my withdrawal symptoms. Editing Wikipedia is addictive. I wanted to get clear before proceeding, and I'm glad I did that. It was then easy to get unblocked! I was, by that time, fairly well-known, with many supporters and some enemies. I made my unblock request, it was denied knee-jerk, and it was then reversed by another admin as being unnecessary.
Users are not aware that they do not get unlimited unblock requests. In any case, he requested again the same day, Block indefinite is too long. Huntster, please, follow the rules , do not do that again, I promise. Thank you and unblock me." :) Smiley faces don't work! Wikipedia is not social media. He hasn't notice that his first unblock was not by Hunster. Hunster is not in charge of his future, but I bet he was thinking he was. Hunster did an ad hoc action, one of many, and moved on.
He then emailed administrators. He kept requesting unblock, He apparently created a sock puppet. He did not do the one thing that might get him unblocked, stop, think, listen, reflect, and get help, not from an administrator, but from any competent user. He did get a few attempts to advise him. He wanted "another chance." With the impression he'd created, he would not get another chance without elapsed time. In fact, Wikversity could be his "other chance." If he establishes a positive history here, listens to advice, stops pushing when the signs are saying "Stop," he could get unblocked on en.wikipedia. He made it much more difficult by socking. His talk page access was finally blocked, "repeated nonsense unblock requests." They were not "nonsense," but they showed serious lack of clue. I see only 9 edits by him to his talk page after he was blocked. That's not a lot.
I saw a banned user allowed talk page access repeatedly add and remove a space, many times. The purpose was obvious: to shove the removed content down off the first page of history display. Highly disruptive. Nothing was done. Why? this banned editor was a favorite user of the same faction that banned me..... He is not unbanned. How? A technicality, exploited brilliantly by his supporters. He had his username changed to a name that is impossible to remember. He did disclose his past accounts, but in such a way as to make it very difficult to understand and follow. Nothing done about that. It is obvious. He is "one of us," to the dominant group. PhD grad student, very smart. I worked with him, he was competent. And he was highly disruptive, one of the most disruptive users I saw, setting up situations to attempt to humiliate any admin who enforced ArbCom sanctions on him. Still disruptive, POV-pusher, but who notices?
He eventually did this, which transluded the entire Guide to Appealing Blocks, together with an instruction to read it. He needed to read it! and to understand it! He is, in requesting unblock, demonstrating that he is clueless, and hasn't learned anything. As was predictable, his Talk page access was removed. Admins do not want to continue wasting time. He had previously used email when talk page requests were far more appropriate, so his email had been blocked, so his on-wiki access had been completely shut off, except, of course, what every newbie then thinks of, he creates a sock.
Our friend's sock: [12]. He might as well have pasted a sign on his butt: Kick Me! It's probably relatively harmless. If he tries to use that account elsewhere, it could cause both accounts to be blocked. His global account display: [
He requested an account on the Foundation wiki: [13] Complete lack of clue. He is now blocked on three wikis:, Commons, and On Commons, we see the graduated escalation of blocks. Notice this: [14]. This was the enwiki admin who blocked him. He takes the time to explain to him. He was blunt, but I'd say probably accurate. The user is young, and often confused. From Commons and enwiki, difficulty understanding English. He especially does not understand idiom. He is warned, he pings the user with a repetition of the warning. I take that as an attempt to say that he understands it and will follow it, but it doesn't work. Users end up saying "I don't understand what you meant."
Okay, we take on young users, and it works if they come to respect that our goal is to empower them. (With the most spectacular case, he was suspicious at first.) So, Wikiversity contributions. His last contribution here was in May, and it was placing a NowCommons template. This would be wikignoming. Marshall, I'm not taking this one on, I'll assist if you need it. He has an interest in astronomy. I suggest emailing him, to engage with him. Be aware he is young and may not understand, first pass. Tell him that if he continues, and especially if he uses sock puppets, he's likely to be globally locked, and that is much more difficult to recover from. For now, he's welcome here, and whatever he did elsewhere will not be held against him. If he has a guiding user, he can make mistakes here and recover. This is a place for learning, and that includes learning how to navigate a wiki community. I want to underscore this: it is very dangerous for him to edit the other wikis, until he has developed much more skill. You can point him to this discussion, and he's welcome to contact me, on-wiki or by email. Tell him not to email users whom he does not think will welcome it. It's easy to get email access cut off! Give up on editing Wikipedia for now, it will take time. When he is actually ready, I can advise him how to get unblocked there, and even though I'm banned there, I might even be able to assist. My email access there was never cut off, because I never did anything with it that could possibly be considered abusive. But he's not ready yet. --Abd (discusscontribs) 01:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
He is on the edge of a global lock, then. He still has talk page access on Commons. At this point, he should not use it. If he does, it could be revoked. If he doesn't use it, and develops some experience here, he might be able to request unblock again. It's not likely, but not impossible, I'd suggest he wait a year, at least. Taivo tried to explain to him, as did others. It was suggested he write in his own language, because it seems English is not it. Commons is multilingual. Wikversity is in English, but I do suggest that non-english speakers, if there is a possibility of misunderstanding, discuss in their own language, if google translate is available. --Abd (discusscontribs) 01:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)