User talk:Abd

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search


Because of disruptive editing here by SPAs, this page has been semi-protected so that only participants who have registered and who have met other requirements -- which takes some time -- may edit it. If an user wishes to contact me and is prevented from doing so by this restriction, email is invited, which will also be confidential. Sorry for any convenience --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The protection expired, but if it is replaced, see the above. I may also be reached by comment on my blog or a Contact Us form submission there. That is slow-response but will eventually be seen.

FYI, this is your personal talk page and we would consider it a very reasonable request if you asked us to semi-protect it for autoconfirmed editing only. Just ping one of us if you feel that it is warranted and let us know the duration. --mikeu talk 23:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Sure, @Mu301: thanks, please semiprotect. I don't need all those useless notifications. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
YesY Done Please ping again if you want it undone or the duration changed. Also let us know if you get unwanted activity from any registered users. We won't tolerate any en-wv pages being used to annoy you. --mikeu talk 23:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd use the Thank button to thank you (yes, this move to the top, is fine), but blocked users cannot use the Thank button.... --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


It's made me quite sad to see you leave. Although I agree with your comments on Wikiversity talk:Requests for Deletion, I don't agree with you leaving over this. The project is still here. What's the deal now? But you know... whatever makes you at ease will make me at ease. It's your choice after all :( ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Atcovi. "Leaving" means that I will not be investing more effort in improving Wikiversity resources. The project is there, but a bureaucrat made a deletion decision, and if that stands -- I am not requesting reconsideration, though others may -- the only "work" is to rescue the content; I have exported it, and assuming I made no mistake, I have it and can install it in another wiki where it is welcome. That was years of effort and work and time spent by many people. It is now claimed by Mike that projects on an allegedly fringe topic must be approved, which is entirely new, it has never been that way. The resource was not disruptive, and there had not been, as far as I recall, any deletion effort before.
My conclusion is that wikis are not safe, period. There is a long history behind that. It had appeared that Wikiversity had strong traditions of academic freedom, with local consensus required for deletion. But there were exceptions where SPAs were allowed to prevail. And those exceptions always concerned me. But even more the decisions of some administrators concerned me. They were clearly not dedicated to the original goals of Wikiversity, but to something else that seemed more important. Attempts to address the problems by development of policy were frustrated and opposed.
Cold fusion is a Wikiversity resource, it is far too disorganized to be a Wikibook. I did start a Wikibook but never worked on it. I might write one, but I will probably not write it on Wikibooks, because it would be attacked there also, I expect. I will likely write it elsewhere and then, when it is ready, will probably upload to Wikibooks, so that deletion would be harmless to me. I used the WV resource to study the subject, to "learn by doing," and the result was that I did become expert, expert enough to be published under peer review in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal, expert enough to become, at least, a journalist covering major events and the topic, and to be funded to do that. Expert enough to identify needed research on a basic cold fusion issue, and to suggest funding it as a priority, and then see it funded by a very-well-known donor, at a major research university.
As you know, I defended users who were in trouble. I showed them how they could write and study productively without disruption. For years, though, that work was attacked by some. There were a few who supported me. I remember a steward who recognized what I was doing and who then ignored the claims of the "anti-vandalism" user who was clearly obsessed about getting a certain "vandal" blocked. But that steward was an exception. Most were clueless and dedicated to what they considered important, stopping vandalism and spam and, one of them, any kind of self-promotion (even though self-promotion is allowed, even on Wikipedia, on user pages). The original purposes of the wikis sometimes gets lost in that.
In order to survive on Wikiversity, I needed to stop major participation some years ago. That would at least leave me unblocked so I could occasionally do something. I have now been formally "sanctioned." Given that I did not do what the sanction implied I had done, I could think that it is meaningless. But, no, there is an effort to ban me, globally. And what matters on a wiki is not reality, but how things appear at first glance to those who are not willing to actually study history and consider a situation with depth. And this is a fundamental wiki problem that has afflicted Wikipedia since very early on. Solutions have been suggested and were always quickly rejected (because the solutions require innovation, and even simple and harmless experimentation was rejected, long story.)
So, again, Atcovi, thanks. I'm happy that you have done what you have done, and grateful that I could watch it over the years. We will be in touch. I'm not spiking my password or any such drastic LANCB action. I'm not socking on WMF wikis. (If I were globally banned, I might or might not. Depends.) My activity will go to my blog and to wikis where I'm not subject to the nonsense I have encountered here. Keep in touch! If I expand that Wikibook, you can expect that some will attack it. But will they identify errors and attempt to improve them? No, from history, they will claim it is too much work. Just DELETE it.
Study Mike's deletion close! It is mind-boggling. He saw that the deletion request was not accompanied by valid deletion arguments and he asked users to stop the personal attacks and irrelevancies. Users ignored that request. I had requested warnings. No users were warned, on the user talk pages. So he asked for a cool-down, which would suppress comment by users inclined to comply. And then he closed with Delete based on arguments that had not been discussed. He completely invented the idea that the resource had long caused disruption. He completely invented a new proposed policy that resources on fringe science would need prior approval -- and if something is fringe science, it can be expected that there will be opposition. So this would be suppressing the study of fringe topics, introducing a site bias. There are actually many such resources. On Wikipedia, there are articles on fringe topics. Fringe is not excluded. Even extreme fringe, clear pseudoscience, is covered, such as Flat earth theories (the study of which can be quite educational. Obviously, most people believe the Earth is round, but do they know why this became a consensus? Do they know how they could easily, themselves, measure the size of the Earth? Basically, studying even error is highly educational, and this has often been pointed out in deletion discussions. If the page is wrong, balance it! If that is too much work, then make sure that an allegedly imbalanced page is presented in a context that neutralizes it -- which is most easily done by attribution, sometimes subpaging. If the Cold fusion resource is imbalanced, which is arguable, the standard Wikiversity solution is simple, and I've demonstrated it many times, but Mike seems to be completely unaware of all this and is thinking like a Wikipedian, i.e., that the way to neutralize is to correct every imbalanced statement, which is utterly impractical!
And he is a bureaucrat. I have studied the history of Wikiversity in detail, how it came to be as it is. Few do that, and those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it. --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Keep your eyes open, Atcovi. See what actually happens. Maa shaa'a llah. My full trust is in reality. I have found that when a road is blocked, there is a better road! --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Very intelligent response. It's good to know that this is not a full out retirement and there is still a way for communication. Happy for that.
I was also a bit shocked that the sockpuppets won the discussion as well. Was a bit dissapointed but alas it is the end call that I disagree with. Was confused on some other accounts though, having edited way before this whole attack on you and Benn Stiegmann. Can't really accuse them of being sockpuppets. Also the WP admin coming down here to vote as well.
Yes, I definately remember your efforts and will always remember them. There are not a lot of compassionate members that are willing to work out the issues... Wikimedia has too many users who are obsessed with "blocking"--it's crazy! We had a prime example of that back in 2013--his failed WP RFA still stands today as a sign... scary to know he had a perfect oppertunity to be a custodian here. Yikes!
If its there at Wikibooks, I will assess it with my own (yet, limited) judgement... but, unless I strongly disagree with any action against your project, I have to remain neutral. Sysopwork is not easy. I thought it was great to hold the tools, but everything you do as a sysop is held accountable... 1 slip up--boom! Haha. I laugh at how I was so powerhungry back in 2013-2014. But alas, it's a learning experience that I'm happy I've learned. There are still users to this day that still complain about my actions in 2013-2014... but I think it is rather a personal grudge than a true and rational complaint.
Can't say about Mike that much. I've always enjoyed working with him here and I was saddened by his long period of inactivity. All I have to say is I disagree with his decision.
Very true, very true. A life quote to remember whenever life ever goes down the drain. Thank you. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I.e., whenever it appears that something important has gone down the drain .... "Important" is something we invent, it is not from reality, and whatever is not reality will pass away, kulli shay'in faan illa wajhullah.
As to admin decisions, it is well-known that some will complain about them. So the general principle is to consider that use of tools is as a representative of the community, and to back away from personal commitment to it being "correct." I wrote proposed recusal policy here. It was opposed. To understand the history here, that might be reviewed. But, again, not by me. Basically, admins make their own best decision. If it is clear to them, they act. If not, they propose action or possibly warn. If there is objection, an admin will back up and defer final decision to someone else. They may or may not reverse their own action, depending on conditions, but to give an example, an admin acting properly will never decline an unblock template for their own block. They will not argue tendentiously against unblock. If the unblock could be seen as "involved," whether or not it actually is, and as soon as they realize there is a claim, they may themselves ask for administrative review, by uninvolved admins. If there is no uninvolved admin active (a situation which arose many times on Wikiversity), they will present the decision they made to the community for review. If it is a block, they will not necessarily unblock, and if they have promptly consulted, what is later considered to be improper, if that happens, would simply be a mistake, not a cause for desysop (unless it is frequent and clearly indicates incapacity for self-restraint). Admins will make mistakes, it's to be expected. An admin should not act if arguably involved. However, there can be "emergencies," where failure to act could cause damage. So under that proposed policy, they may act and be safe from claims of recusal failure if they promptly consult and do not argue tendentiously.
The basic idea is that it's a wiki and mistakes can generally be corrected, and easily. However, if there is no neutral review, mistakes can be enshrined as past decisions not to be reviewed, and attempting that will be considered "beating a dead horse."
It is not up to you to decide if a complaint is "true and rational." However, some complaints obviously are not rational or not evidence-based. What a good admin will make very clear is that decisions are not merely personal opinion, that if there is personal opinion involved it is transient and not important, the ultimate on some point is not up to the allegedly opinionated admin but to the community.
This is how I acted when a custodian. Yet it was not enough. And why? What actually happened? Ah, to describe it could take a tome, and -- generally -- nobody cares.... --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


This block was totally unexpected.

The actions cited are:

  • First Apparently this is about the removal of Template:Scope, which is a form of speedy deletion template, and the template itself indicates that if the deletion is disputed, recourse is Requests for Deletion, not replacement of the template. This is very well-established procedure for Template:Speedy deletion, Template:Scope, and Template:Prod. However, the page Fringe science was formerly Fringe sciences and referred to the "science of fringes," which is a different topic than is understood commonly by "Fringe science or sciences." I renamed Fringe sciences to Fringe science and made it be entirely about the normal topic (stripping out the material Marshall was studying about the physics of fringes, because he had already created Physics/Fringes with the same material.
  • Second Because the discussion on that page was now moot for that resource, I blanked it, with a reference to history if anyone was curious. That was easily undone, if anyone wished to continue the discussion (I can't imagine why), but it was no longer about the page as it now existed. There were other possible solutions -- for example, that talk page could have been moved to Talk:Physics/Fringes but, again, the dispute was really mostly about the page title, on the face of it.
  • Third is an edit by Dave Braunschweig which violated deletion procedures, by replacing a removed Scope template, and in any case the deletion request was no longer relevant as discussed. This block is an action of a custodian involved in a dispute, who was threatening another custodian with block for following normal policies and procedures. If the deletion is to be discussed, the place for that would be Requests for deletion, not an obscure talk page.

I request neutral review of this block or a Community Review, which could consider confirming the block or lifting it, or clarifying relevant policies and the propriety of administrative actions. --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You may not consider my perspective to be neutral, however, I would support this unblock request. The edits in question could be interpreted as a good-faith attempt to resolve a content issue. However, I am denying the unblock request, as there is a second block in place. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Dave.... this is technically correct, as the basis for the first block was as you say (and in reality), a good faith attempt to resolve a dispute, but the second block had a different basis, a long-term consideration.

I could argue that the blocking 'crat was involved in the first dispute and the heat of that led him to the second conclusion. A second block like that is certainly unusual when there is no new provocation. However, we can deal with this one step at a time. Normally, as you were involved in that dispute, it would be improper for you to deny the unblock.

I would have suggested a technical unblock to annotate the block log so that the block did not add to the weight of prior blocks (and Mike is showing how that can do harm), possibly followed by an immediate reblock based on the second issue, without prejudice, to allow consultation, but will later add an unblock template on the second block. It is a far more complex issue. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll elaborate more on this later, but just a quick note for now. We are all volunteers who are spending our free time contributing to learning resources here in the hope of creating a vibrant educational community. The amount of time that we have spent on your needs and concerns is disproportionate to the productive activity that you have made here. It distracts us from both our personal learning/teaching goals and the broader mission of the community. A wiki is a collaborative environment where multiple viewpoints must be considered. We simply can't allow a single voice to dominate all others. I get it. You really want to help. But, so often these efforts result in conflict and disruption which is a burden on the limited resources that we have. This is not "helpful" to our project in any sense of the word. Your unblock log is filled with our repeated AGF attempts to accommodate you. You've had dozens and dozens of "second changes." In so many of our discussions you have monopolized the discourse with a flood of text that drowns out any other opinions. We'd like to hear from those other voices for a change. I need to do some work now on important but neglected aspects of Wikiversity. I'll check back on your talk page periodically to further discuss in a few days or so. Sorry, but please don't expect a prompt response to every comment or question that you make. --mikeu talk 23:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Mike, I did not request your response to anything written here and you have, I'll agree, no such obligation. Experienced administrators never argue with a blocked user! For the second block, I have not yet put up an unblock template, because you made (and Dave confirmed) a series of claims that simply do not match history -- and you continue to make them. So, please, stay away unless I ping you, or you feel that I have placed something here, in an unblock request, that is misleading and you want to say more to an administrator considering unblock. I am delaying placing the template because my block log is complex and not as you have represented it. You would only think that if you make assumptions from the log itself, knowing nothing about context. Instead of arguing that here, I will document the log, with evidence, for others to review if they wish. "Dozens and dozens of second chances?" That's a drastic misrepresentation of the history. Why the exaggeration? I have my ideas, and, if true, my condolences. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


Your long term activity at Wikiversity shows a persistent pattern of long term disruption that has been going on for the past SEVEN YEARS! This activity has also drawn a great deal of unwelcome contentious activity to our site that distracts the community from developing learning resources. The unblocks in your log show repeated attempts by our community to assume that you are making a good faith effort to improve Wikiversity despite much evidence to the contrary. I'm not going to get into the minutia of your individual actions. I'm going to make a call based on the sum of your contributions. Wikiversity is not your personal podium. Your participation here has become a drain on the resources of our community and we will not allow this to continue. -mikeu talk 21:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Gratuitous, involved, and unnecessary. I already have an unblock request above. Blocked for one year, no need for an indef block, effectively a unilateral ban decision, out-of-process and useless. I don't need Wikiversity for anything. I have personal podiums with far higher reward. But I found Wikiversity useful, for a time, for my own education. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mu301: I believe an indefinite block on Abd, in this circumstance, requires community consensus... just like my ban back in Simple Wikipedia in 2013. Please consider. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Please review all of the many discussions by numerous members of our community about his disruptive behavior that have occurred during the past several years. Then take a look at the list of blocks by multiple custodians that this behavior resulted in. Also consider the unwanted contentious activity that this has brought to Wikiversity. Any further discussion will need to take into account this long history of unproductive contributions and how it has negatively impacted our community. --mikeu talk 00:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Atcovi: Please refer to [4]. Abd's unblock in 2013 was dependent upon his agreement to "work only on educational resources of interest to me and value to users". He unilaterally voided that agreement in 2014 at [5]. The current block may be viewed as an extension of the community-supported block from 2011. The same disruptive behaviors continue, and continue to have a net negative effect on Wikiversity. Therefore, additional community discussion is not necessary. However, as a member of the community, you are welcome to open a new discussion if you wish. I would encourage you to first consider, based on recent negative interest in Abd's cross-wiki contributions, whether further discussion would benefit either Abd or Wikiversity. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Atcovi: please do not start a Community Review without consultation. The issue here is the future of Wikiversity, there are fundamental shifts being pushed without consensus, and the structure is precarious.
There was no "community-supported block" in 2011, to make that clear. Where was the "discussion"? I will cover this elsewhere. As to the agreement made in 2013, to facilitate unblock, I notified the unblocking 'crat of my intention to drop it, yes, as linked, in January, 2014. Please read that notice! It was not "voided," but termination proposed, with notice to the one who had unblocked, so that he could renew the block or notify me that the agreement was still in effect, with three words, "No, still valid." There was no objection from any staff then, and this has often been mentioned, but, before, only by disruptive users. Dave was a probationary custodian from September, 2013. He did not object when I closed his custodianship in October, 2014. He did not object when I acted to emergency-remove the custodianship of a rogue probie, also in October, 2014. Something has shifted, drastically, and now excuses are being dredged from the muck. --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Abd has been harassing Wikipedia users on his website and only two days ago he also attacks Wikiversity and Wikipedia admins on his website. No doubt when he says he is "covering" this elsewhere. He will write 10,0000 words about it on his website. Everyone in the world is wrong and he is always right. All this comes up on Google traffic so it is a way he has been defaming people, this has done considerable damage to Wikiversity. If he is to request an 'unblock' request admins should bear this in mind. He should receive a global ban from all wikipedia projects. (discuss) 18:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
There is a certain sock master with hundreds of sock puppets created (an incomplete list is at m:User:Abd/LTA/Anglo Pyramidologist/User data; (the detailed study with dates of sockpuppet investigations was deleted, because, I don't know because. Complaints, perhaps) who also has lately been using O2 mobile to continue his agenda, because the IP constantly shifts, and he is intensely watching everything I do, and the recent activity on Wikiversity has pleased him no end and is being immediately copied to RationalWiki. He is already effectively banned from WMF wikis -- many accounts were locked at my checkuser request -- but his agenda has now been accepted here, to eliminate all "fringe," and block people with a fringe point of view, without warning based on old allegations or even old mistakes. See that article on me! And there is also one on Ben Steigmann, started by the same sock master. Now, Wikiversity is clearly no longer safe. When I made a fairly minor comment on the Talk page of a blocked user, I was immediately blocked, and I agreed that the comment was improper. The above IP range has been making many uncivil comments. Nothing has been done about it, except to follow his suggestions. --Abd (discusscontribs) 18:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I have not made any uncivil comments just pointed out facts, you are abusing JPS and other users on your website. I am not "AngloPyramidologist" or a sock, you have accused about four different IPS of being that person. The consensus on meta-Wiki was to delete your LTA studies because you are hosting those to defame innocent people. Various emails by different users have been sent to the Wikimedia foundation about your abuse. I will request to have the other LTA link you linked to deleted as well. You have now ported that deleted study to your personal website and you are linking to it on your website to pretend meta-wiki support your "studies". But go ahead write ten thousand words on your website about my O2 IP address, lol. You have paranoid conspiracy theories. You are a trouble maker and have been banned all over the web like your Rationalwiki article you just linked to claims. You are one of these people who causes disruption on every wiki you visit, but you have no self-reflection about your behaviour and you always blame others. "AngloPyramidologist" is just an escape-goat you have created. (discuss) 19:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request

I have studied the block log, introduced by an overall presentation of my WV custodianship. With such high participation and "passion," as JtNeill described it -- I loved Wikiversity and wanted it to be fully successful and safe for scholars -- some mistakes will be made. The process that last effectively ended my probationary custodianship (by not undoing an "emergency desysop" when there was no emergency, was closed as unsuccessful, but showed very high support.

The most recent year block was clearly inappropriate, as Dave seems to agree. Believing that I was being disruptive -- and in the apparent presence of private complaints (from actual Wikiversitans?) -- could then lead Mu301 to react to a quick appearance. When he wrote "SEVEN YEARS!," the first block was indeed in 2010 but was not removed as a "second chance." The block was outrageous, and the custodian lost his tools over that and similar actions. This then had consequences, it's discussed in that block study. In fact, none of the blocks were so removed, though the unblock in 2013 might be construed that way. Dave has presented an old argument about it, not supported by fact. Jtneill clearly accepted the withdrawal of that agreement, and so did Dave, when I closed his permanent custodianship vote (when no bureaucrat was active) ... and when I then arranged the emergency desysop of a rogue custodian who was wheel-warring.

There was no recent activity worthy of a block of any kind, but a year was an extreme -- and involved -- response to a legitimate edit, and indef without community review, based on a complex claim of long-term abuse, is completely outside of Wikiversity traditions. Please unblock (and set restrictions if needed.) Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Please describe in detail how your continued participation on this site would benefit our project and our community. I see a very long history (review the multiple discussions of blocks and unblock requests on this talk page, and also your entire history of participating here) of our staff spending an inordinate amount of time responding to your activity and the contentious exchanges that it has drawn to our site. This is an unwelcome distraction from our mission. Recently I was reminded of a quote that I feel is relevant to this discussion:

Philosophical Question #3: Is the individual greater than the community?

"That depends on the nature of the community. In a combat unit fighting for material gains, it is customary to sacrifice a chess piece for the sake of winning the game. In a spiritual community, saving the individual is an overarching goal. In an educational community, the dilemma is comparable to the one faced by Mrs. Zajac in Tracy Kidder's book, Among Schoolchildren. In that story, the teacher spent an enormous amount of time and energy trying to save two problem children (Clarence and Robert). In the end, Mrs. Zajac failed to reach them, and so everyone lost, including the other children in the class who were neglected while Mrs. Zajac spent so much time on a futile effort to reach Clarence and Robert." --User:Moulton,15 September 2008

Our educational community can not continue to allow the needs and wants of a single contributor who has not productively contributed to the development of learning resources recently to distract us from the work that we are devoted to. Productive members of our community are telling me: "Regarding Abd at Wikiversity... the participation his behavior draws certainly have a net negative effect on my experience."[6] It is time for us to focus our limited resources on the neglected members of our learning community who have become frustrated and discouraged by your disruptive participation here. --mikeu talk 16:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Mike, you are arguing tendentiously for a position not based on evidence, but impression and gossip (and misinformation). To argue this would take a tome, and just to answer the specific points in your comment would take a tome. It's provocative and time-wasting. If a custodian is considering unblocking, the custodian may ask questions -- or impose conditions --, but you frame the question here as if I must prove that my participation will be valuable, but my long-term stand is that the value to be created is the value to participants, that the community exists to provide value to those who use the resources, which most of all, for Wikiversity, in the creation of them, "learning by doing." To decide on the issue of value to the community, you would need to look at my full contributions and history. If that is to be done, Community Review is the place, not my Talk page while blocked.
Your first block was clearly in error. The next block was a personal decision on ban, entirely avoiding all tradition and policy on that. You had declared a "sanction." I did not violate it, even though I thought it totally in error and might have appealed it to the community ... but I hadn't. You are claiming continued disruption, but the record does not show that.
I just spent two days documenting the history, which shows some of what you ask, and you show no sign of even having looked at it.
So I am asking you to stay away from this process and I do not intend to respond more to comments from you, here, until this is resolved. Unless you have something to say that could actually be useful. The time you wasted writing the above was by your own choice. Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
We have spent a tremendous amount of time repeatedly discussing unblock conditions over the course of many years. This has distracted the community from productively contributing to the development of our learning resources. At this point in time the burden is upon you to explain and justify how your contributions are of such benefit to this learning community that it warrants our further consideration. --mikeu talk 18:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The claim is misleading and largely false. This is not the place to argue this, unless an unblocking custodian considering unblock has questions. I see no sign that you are considering undoing your action, therefore, please respect the request to stay away. If it's a waste of time, stop wasting your own time, and mine, as well, from the notification. --Abd (discusscontribs) 18:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Another bureaucrat has already reviewed and denied your previous request. I'm not going to "stay away" when I see a serious issue that has affected the development and growth of our community for such a long time. We are trying to devote our efforts to improving the learning resources here and we can't continually be expending efforts on a futile attempt to accommodate your disruptive behavior. --mikeu talk 19:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Archiving cold fusion

Have you finished archiving the category:cold fusion pages? Ping us and let us know how you would like to proceed. --mikeu talk 00:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mu301: Thanks. I have downloaded the Cold fusion XML, but have not yet been able to validate it. (I am working on a MediaWiki installation and there are some odd technical problems.) I exported all pages including Talk, with full history. It was a massive file, 157 MB. Because I also attempted to export the Parapsychology resource, but the export failed multiple times (and someone else tried it, same result), I'm suspicious of all the exports until I am able to validate them by importing to a wiki. This is 130 pages roughly plus talk pages. Because discussions were sometimes archived to history, full history is needed. Parapsychology was particularly valuable as a demonstration of how to cover a controversial topic with overall neutrality. So eventually I will want that resource as with Cold fusion. --Abd (discusscontribs) 02:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I'm not trying to pressure you, it is not urgent. Let me know how it goes. --mikeu talk 03:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
FYI: I've moved them to Cold fusion/Archive/... --mikeu talk 04:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, that move is similar to what I'd have requested (as a non-sysop I could not just do it) for the entire resource if there was an actual challenge to neutrality. I did that with another resource when conflict appeared. The challenger was a sysop elsewhere and known for being very tenacious. The move completely defused the conflict, we were able to coooperate, neutrality with high consensus was created, and there were no more problems and he, in fact, then trusted me when I intervened in a dispute on another wiki where he was sysop -- and involved in a high-stakes conflict. That conflict was also resolved, in part, perhaps, due to my intervention.
@Mu301:: So now I will ask you to undelete the Parapsychology resource and so move it, i.e., similarly. In the other case, I created managed (attributed) sections, managed and unmanaged. Unmanaged sections and the top-level page must be completely neutral as to good-faith users. I believed that the Parapsychology resources was so, from the beginning. There had been a little attempt to modify it that was accepted in part and reverted in part, and Dave had validated the result.
There are other similar moves that I used for years to resolve conflict. I had not done this for Cold fusion because no conflict had appeared! I still kept the top-level page neutral, in my opinion, and by this time I had become expert in the field, partly by the study I did here (the purpose of my studies is not to teach, but to learn, but the process can create a trail that others may follow if they choose), and eventually (2015) I published a specialized review in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal. These resources were clearly and proven to be educational, not as authorities, but as process, "learning by doing." I will write about that elsewhere.
Wikipedia is neutral-by-exclusion (in theory, in practice not always). Wikiversity was neutral-by-inclusion, by framing and attribution. There are those who, on Wikipedia, attacked the 2010 Naturwissenschaften Storms review, the abstract of which was used at the top of the page, and one of them came here to vote for deletion. One of the IPs ridiculed that quotation ... but the decision on Wikipedia was that it was reliable source. If someone thought the placement was not neutral, it could easily have been fixed ... if that was a good-faith position and even if it was not. It is simply not difficult to find consensus with some patience and with good-faith participants (or with those who want to avoid looking totally biased).
TIA. It would resolve much possible disruption if you make that move. With the move of the entire resource, including discussion (which was an important part of the learning process there, actually ending up creating some new research by an expert), future action becomes non-emergency. I would not have contested such a move during the RfD. Details could have been worked out later. Full deletion should be reserved for content that is actually illegal or intrinsically disruptive. (and it was content like that which was what the original Research proposal had in mind. "Fringe" there meant extreme and highly provocative fringe, not merely a legitimate topic, and such views promoted in the resource as somehow accepted when they are not, by a large majority. --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm just returning to work today after a long winter break. I have a lot of catching up to do in the office, so I might not be able to do much with the Parapsychology pages in the next week. User:Marshallsumter expressed an interest. Perhaps he has more time than I do to look into this. I would be fine with him:

Please note: that this is only for the purpose of archiving; no new development should take place and the pages should remain in Category:Pending deletions while they are being processed. The above also applies to Special:PrefixIndex:Cold fusion/Archive if you need some extended time to figure out the bugs in the XML export. FWIW, I looked into generating a book but had difficulty getting it to work. I hope this helps.

You are welcome for my move of the note to the top of this page. I want that warning to anyone who tries to annoy you while you work on this to be as clearly visible as possible. --mikeu talk 17:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks, @Mu301:. much appreciated. @Marshallsumter:: Per the above, please undelete and userfy Parapsychology.
  • Because I created Parapsychology, please move it to my user space. You may also similarly userfy the Cold fusion resource, pending. Please restore to top-level user space, not to the Archive subpage that Mike created, which will become unnecessary in my user space, simply complicating page names.
  • With these moves, if the "fringe science" policy declaration is sustained, the resources can then be seen by the community so that it can make decisions based on information rather than claims.
  • For the moment, what is done with redirects and notices is of less importance to me. I would hope, actually, that someone looking for the resources can find them (there have often been off-wiki links, especially to the Cold fusion/Recent sources page. (which currently has no redirect in spite of many links, see What links here.). Obviously, following Mike's suggestions about the notices would be advisable, because if any of this is later found to be less than optimal, it can be fixed. This will also establish a precedent for a less disruptive approach to resources where there has been much work invested.
  • Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 18:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I will read through both requests a couple of times to be sure I have this down, then will proceed. Just FYI, the reason you may be having a problem with any filing effort is the Bibliography Steigmann was working on. The Wikimedia computers overloaded, so I looked at it under page information after the earlier undeletion and could not believe we were allowed that much space. More later. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 18:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
If the single page is the problem, all the rest can be XML'd and that page handled separately. If there were a lot of additions and removals, this would cause the full page history to grow. If in doubt, with large moves, discuss first! (Steigmann should have been subpaging, probably.) I don't expect the undeletion task for Parapsychology to be difficult, then it would be moved to my User space as a mass move. I suggest allowing the creation of redirects, which could then readily be turned into soft redirects if someone thinks that necessary. As I mention above, deleting redirects is far easier than creating them (unless one undoes the entire move and redoes it with redirection). --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Please, no redirects from mainspace to userspace. I moved the cold fusion to /Archive specifically to break incoming links. --mikeu talk 20:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I think everything went smoothly but some 12 Talk pages are still in Cold fusion/Archive. Also, missed above non-redirect request. Please advise on those talk pages and I'll locate redirects and delete. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 20:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I had the same problem. You can only move 100 subpages at a time and there are more than 100 in this case. So, I had to move some by hand. --mikeu talk 21:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I moved a few of the talk pages. --mikeu talk 21:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • FYI: User:Mu301Bot/cf is a list of what the page titles were before anything changed in case you need to refer to it. --mikeu talk 21:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, my bot is removing Category:Cold fusion and replacing it with {{tl:CourseCat}} which is what a number of the other pages use instead. It is almost finished. --mikeu talk 22:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
YesY Done --mikeu talk 22:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Started restoring/moving and removing deletion templates from Parapsychology. More tomorrow, including rest of those redirects - brain's fried! Got to get a bot that works with my IMac. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I deleted a bunch of redirects, I don't think there are any left in mainspace. Please leave both groups of pages in Category:Pending deletions as they are only in userspace temporarily to allow time for backup and will be deleted when Adb has archived them. Just do what you have to do to make an off-site copy. Cleanup can happen on the new server. --mikeu talk 02:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, no problem! I was concerned someone would see either and start another discussion. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
No, we wouldn't open a new discussion. If anyone notices them we'll just point them to the prior review. As long as they are in pending deletion I don't expect anyone to complain. I used my bot to remove the pages from mainspace categories like Cold Fusion. They shouldn't be obvious to anyone casually looking around. Send anyone to my talk if you hear any complaints. --mikeu talk 03:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • For educational resources, discussion is part of the resource, of the learning process, and this was often on Talk pages. I need the talk pages as well. The Cold talk fusion pages can actually wait for a time until I have tested the XML I already have. However, because of the server failures, I will need the Parapsychology talk pages, and I don't have them. Once I have validated downloads, the pages could be deleted. First things first. --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Marshallsumter: The User:Abd/Parapsychology/Sources/Steigmann page was just a placeholder that I originally created in mainspace; Abd doesn't need it. I deleted the placeholder and moved Parapsychology/Sources/Steigmann -> User:Abd/Parapsychology/Sources/Steigmann. I think he is all set now with everything that was deleted. Thanks for helping with this! --mikeu talk 01:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Marshallsumter: and @Mu301:, the Parapsychology Talk pages are still not restored. Thanks for the rest. Tomorrow I will see if I can pull down the XML. --Abd (discusscontribs) 05:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I found 7 using Talk:Parapsychology, any objections to restore and move? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 11:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I have no objections to restoring those talk pages to userspace. --mikeu talk 14:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Should be correct, now! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I now have all the Parapsychology XML uploaded successfully to a wiki, except for the full history of User:Abd/Parapsychology/Sources/Steigmann which breaks export. It is huge, without history it was 1.2 MB. I had not been watching it, or I would have encouraged him to subpage it, creating better opportunity for interaction and critique. This is a monumental work. Completed and cleaned up, it could be a Wikibook. But one step at a time. I will see what can be done about the export failure.
  • I will now start on the Cold fusion resources. I did find what was breaking imports: a 2 MB file size limit on my host. To change that, I found with research, I needed to edit php.ini on the server. After going through what it takes to find the file, I did, and it did not fix the problem, which cost me a day of research or more. Turns out the server only updates php.ini once a day or so, unless it is reset. So next day imports worked. There is still a broken Wikiversity extension, I think, ParserFunctions as I recall (or it's a PHP 7.1 bug that isn't handled be the extension.) That probably only affects the templates, and if a template import failed -- the importer error message is less than helpful, it's a minor problem, it can be fixed later. I'll also report this to the MediaWiki crew.
  • @Marshallsumter: @Mu301: I now have all the files, and they are uploaded to a public wiki (I am still moving them around, moving over 100 files is not trivial.) There is still the Parapsychology/Sources/Steigmann file where history would not export. That file should definitely remain for license purposes. There were other people (some even notable) who edited those pages and they may want access. They were -- I'm sure -- unaware of the deletion until it was quickly closed. Right now, they can follow the trace left by the display of the log when they go to the former URL. As well, it is possible that there will be a reconsideration of the newly-declared policy, and a request for undeletion. If the files are in place, no custodian work will be needed to undelete them in the original locations in order to consider undeletion. So I request that they be left in place. Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 12:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
With the exception of some vandalism that Dave reverted Steigmann is the sole author of Parapsychology/Sources/Steigmann so there is no licensing issue to preserve. The only content in the deletion history was a stub that I created after the page was deleted. Just put a note on the talk page at the new site with first edit and last edit explaining the move. We're not going to continue hosting content that has brought disruption to our site. We're also not going to host content from someone who deceptively tried to profit from efforts here. If you are finished archiving I'll begin deleting tomorrow. --mikeu talk 13:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I am not going to express my opinion here, beyond saying that you have disrupted long-standing policies and practices, with no necessity at all other than pandering to people who have been blocked and banned for attacking those topics (but cold fusion was not disruptive here, even as a target, you invented that). I will wait for resolution of certain issues, then I will research and raise issues elsewhere, including with the WMF. Thanks for helping with recovery of the resources, but I just spent about a week wrangling them, made more difficult and cumbersome by the drastic actions you took without consensus. It's all quite obvious actually, so some good may come out of this.
Except for questions a custodian or 'crat may have about unblock, I should be done here. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
One more point: you have made untrue accusations about me and about Steigmann. The "profiting" accusation (being paid expenses or even more for research is not contrary to Wikiversity policy, and the most that the WMF would want to see is disclosure of conflict of interest; besides, $450 for what was obviously as much as thousands of hours of work was trivial. It might not cover his expenses.) is based on edits to that page, so you are deleting the evidence that could confirm the claim, leaving only allegations visible. The claim was considered before, Steigmman was blocked, and then the issue was reconsidered and Steigmann was unblocked. Even if his first actions were improper, he was never warned before being blocked (either time) and did not persist after warning. This is appalling, Mike. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Please stop deleting my content without warning

@Mu301: You are deleting pages as "abandoned" when the users are freshly blocked, by you, and have not been community banned. Please stop. Please follow policy and precedent and do not consider a page "abandoned" merely because you have blocked the user. If you suspect a page is abandoned and useless for Wikipversity purposes, then the standard non-disruptive process is Template:Proposed deletion. The proof of abandonment is that nobody removes the Prod. Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You said that you were Leaving...

"Leaving" means that I will not be investing more effort in improving Wikiversity resources.[7]

That sounds like "abandoned" to me. --mikeu talk 16:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
You could try asking. That comment was about "improving Wikiversity resources," not maintaining what I had already created. I would strongly have expected some notice or warning before you turned on your deletion bot. Your action here, like many recently, was radically unexpected. What is the least disruptive way that I can obtain copies of those pages? I think the easiest would be to undelete them, they are already in my user space. I request that you not tag them yet, because this will clutter up the logs and the pages, your many edits to the cold fusion resource created an extensive cleanup problem for me, without any necessity. I know that many have referred to some of these user pages, for years. --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the comment, you quoted out-of-context. I went on with: "The project is there, but a bureaucrat made a deletion decision, and if that stands -- I am not requesting reconsideration, though others may -- the only "work" is to rescue the content; I have exported it, and assuming I made no mistake, I have it and can install it in another wiki where it is welcome. That was years of effort and work and time spent by many people."
This was about one particular resource, Cold fusion. The same would apply to any significant work of mine, and there were many pages in user space that represented many, many hours of research and writing. Please restore them, and, please, start consulting me and the community before taking such drastic actions based on "seems like ... to me." --Abd (discusscontribs) 18:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)