User talk:Abd

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search

Pre-block discussions[edit]

Currently blocked, so most of the Talk page is archived to history. Will restore later, with most content going to the regular archives. full version before blanking.

Remainder archived to history,[1] excepting only block discussion. --Abd (discusscontribs) 12:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked For Continued Personal Attacks[edit]

Personal attacks such as [2] are not welcome at Wikiversity. Please let us know when you are prepared to discuss issues rather than editors. Until then, your account is blocked from editing except your user page. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 12:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Please see also: here. Problems seem to have re-emerged after Abd moved away from his commitment:

"To avoid what led to the block I have a clear intention: not to become involved in Wikiversity governance and general maintenance. It was not welcome, even where I was enforcing long-established policy. I will work only on educational resources of interest to me and value to users."

This block should be considered in light of his failure to follow his own clear restrictions which he proposed when he was last unblocked.

His claim that Dave is at fault for instituting the block is part of his modus operandi - attack a custodian and then claim that any response they make is "highly involved".

Abd is long standing Wikiversitan who has also a long history of disruptive bevaiour. His suggestion that he should have been blocked before being warned is wikilawyering].

His response shows that he does not yet understand what is problematic about his behaviour, and indeed further illustrates that he wishes to focus on editors/custodians rather than issues. Leutha (discusscontribs) 16:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for unblock[edit]

The claim here is "continued personal attacks." I see no warnings here. Further, the linked comment is not a personal attack. Who was attacked, and how? The concept that any discussion of an editor is a "personal attack" is very strange, given that this custodian has been, again and again, discussing me and my motives and is now clearly violating recusal procedures without emergency. However, that's moot. This is procedure:
It is stressful for me to have this be open. I have identified what is missing from my Wikiversity participation, and that is adequate support for the work I do. Accordingly, absent expression of support and request to respond here or elsewhere, I am moving my work off this wiki. I am not adding links to where this is taking place, but any other user may request such or place links. See #Requests. --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Some more explanation of why that edit was not a "personal attack." All that is said there is that Dave has little experience -- at least on WMF wikis -- with dispute resolution and editing in the presence of disagreements and conflict. This was stated as a response to a comment that assumed high experience for him, from another user with even less experience. He does have high experience with wikitech, and, at one time, seems to have understood recusal policies, because he followed them, and particularly with regard to me.[3]

Note to administrator considering unblock. Please do not unblock based on "bad block," i.e., solely because Dave is obviously highly involved, blocking me based on his own judgment of whether or not a comment from me about him was a personal attack and worthy of a severe sanction. Rather, consider the issue raised and whether or not the community needs protection from repetition of what I did, because if I don't understand it as a policy violation or blockable offense, this not having been made clear, I will very likely repeat it.

I absolutely had no expectation that I would be blocked or even warned for that comment.

I have been preparing to file a Custodian Feedback on Dave's behavior, I've mentioned that elsewhere and this, of course, requires discussing the behavior, which I see as having already damaged the wiki -- which will be documented --, and as being likely to continue damage unless the community guides Dave.

Consider, as well, whether or not an indef block without warning was justified (and "warning" means a specific diff'd and clear warning on my user talk page, not much more vague discussion elsewhere. In the RCA request diff'd above, there was no clear warning issued, no consensus about personal attack.). Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 13:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WV:Civility. This was approved as policy as part of a mass policy establishment move, in 2006, and this was the approved version. What is there does not apply to the comment I made, certainly not clearly. If a comment is made knowing that it will be offensive, that could be considered a personal attack. It is intention to offend that makes what might otherwise be a legitimate comment a "personal attack."

w:WP:NPA is much more explicit, and the comment "Comment on content, not on the contributor," (which Dave has mentioned elsewhere, and which he rephrases above, is from the summary there, not our policy.) As the rest of the policy makes clear, there are exceptions. The examples given in w:WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack? are all far more of the nature of attack than my comment. Then the WP policy has: "Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum, (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack." In this case, the comment I made was very relevant to the opinion I was responding to. It was an informed opinion, which did not disparage Dave, since lack of experience of a certain kind is not an offense or reprehensible. If wrong, that could be shown. If I believed that my comment was a personal attack, I'd have thanked Dave for the reminder, and this would all be simple. I don't. --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

A sentence that begins with 'Dave knows' is a statement about the user rather than about the issue. Since it would be impossible for a writer to know what a user knows, it is therefore inappropriate in this venue. A more appropriate statement about the issue might be, "There has been little evidence of Dave resolving disputes". The user may disagree with that, but it would be a statement about the issue rather than about the user.
It is important for us to be able to have discussions about issues without making assumptions and statements about the users involved in those discussions. Let us know if you still have questions, and whether you are prepared to discuss issues rather than editors. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)\
In my research into why Wikipedia is loosing female contributors, I've also become aware that it has dropped from being in the top five internet properties to number 6. So far it seems the number one reason for this is personal attacks and overall contention which I've loosely defined as not neutral and not a compliment. For example, a user updated here some images on resources I've been working on. All but one were great. I put the old image back for the one without discussion. This is an example of one instance of contention. The contributor has gone along with that one change so far since the original replacement was not discussed. My second point here is not tolerance but neutrality. If I were to write recommendations for Abd or Dave I might use the phrase "Abd knows" or "Dave knows" but I would not follow either with "almost nothing" or some variation. This would not help either to get a job. Instead, the phrase is a personal attack, an insult, fightin' words. If Wikipedia cannot find a way to reduce contention it may continue to slip down the internet top ten. Dave has provided one possible solution. If contention is a personal attack and others agree, which has occurred, then a custodian should block, which has occurred. I haven't investigated this very thoroughly but I agree with Dave's block for now unless the blockee understands the significance. I apologize in advance for possibly including this in my research. If this eventually works out amicably I'll put my Guinea Pig logo here if that's okay. It's a cute picture! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 15:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Marshall, for standing for civility. However, low levels of incivility are common in human conversation. It is not normal to indef block a user for them, rather, the most that is normal is a warning from an uninvolved user and a short block if the warning is disregarded. If I had not been blocked, and the complaint about my edit were made (and even just by Dave, with a diff), and even if I thought the edit was within propriety, I'd have struck it. The block prevents healing, then. The issue is not whether or not you "agree with the block." (However, are you claiming that it is legitimate for a custodian to block a user for allegedly insulting that custodian? That does not need to be decided here.)
The issue is the unblock request. Are you rejecting it? If so, you would edit it, see instructions on Template:Unblock. As you can see from the request, you or any custodian may set any conditions for unblock that they see fit. So the problem is? --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@Abd: I am willing to participate in this discussion, but you need to say very little. Could you please keep your comments down to ONE LINE? I like the way you applied {{cot|summary}}..{{cob}} on most of what you have said on this page. You were blocked for a personal attack, but the big problem isn't what you say, but how much you say. Look at the this current permalink to the Colloquium. To put it bluntly, it is impossible to hold a conversation with you in it.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 00:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I will keep this comment down to one line. No. The intention of your Colloquium link is unintelligible. If what I write is too long, you are free to ignore it. Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 02:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The permalink to the Colloquium documents that you write much more than anybody else. It is hard for a person who likes to skim prose to even find what other people have written; the signatures are lost in the prose. Your two line response was sufficiently brief. Thanks.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 02:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I already know that I write much more than anyone else, normally (not always!) I also research, probably, much more than anyone else, what I'm writing about. It was only two lines because of indent and that default signature. Anyone can organize text for readability, it's simple, as you have noticed, and never a problem if done with respect. I'd do this with the Colloquium, since you mention it, but ... I'd have to evade the block at this point.
I wasn't blocked for writing too much. The cited comment was very brief. A longer response would have been more explanatory, less laconic. and maybe less vulnerable to offense being taken. So ... what does all this mean? --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


Requests for Abd may be sent by email or placed in this section. Please respect all Wikiversity policies. Requests by IP that do not identify the requestor might be ignored or reverted. Responses may be off-wiki, and this section will only maintain active requests. Others will be blanked. Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)