User talk:Thenub314

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome!

Hello Thenub314, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon Button sig.png in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may


And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Adambro 11:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Found ya! Considering that how to build a pykrete bong and other original research was moved here, you'll have to decide whether you want to be more content with the content or the people in determining where you will continue to work. I needn't point out the obvious that personal conflicts aren't unique to Wikibooks since you've seen the Colloquium. Adrignola 20:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL! I felt bad I might of scared Nurmi off, and had vague plans to tie together linear algebra resources. But I found I have jumped out of the frying pan into the the great big <the follow content has been censored. Kayau is much to young for that sort of language.> Thenub314 20:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Not quite sure if it's masochism or what, but conflicts here are about three times as intense as anything you encountered at Wikibooks, so I'm not sure why you've involved yourself. You're supposed to be enjoying your wikibreak. Adrignola 21:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Normally, the conflicts are easy to ignore but the wrong person was allowed temporary power and it went to his end, thus resulting in over 10 megs of attacks between him and another user. When school starts up again it will be drowned out by the bustle of academics. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note[edit source]

I don't mention you lightly. I believe you and Adrignola would be valuable to Wikiversity and, if you were willing to go through the process of adminship, take more of a role in Wikiversity as a whole, and then put yourself up for Crat in October then it would be for the best of this community. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure I would be willing to go through the adminship process and take more of a role here. I am unfortunately moving between universities at the moment and will be without a home or stable internet connection for 3 or so weeks. But maybe I can start the process in September. Thenub314 15:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

{[subst:rmas}}

Motivation and emotion[edit source]

Hi Thenub314. Welcome to the unit and to Wikiversity! I look forward to learning with you and I hope you find the topic and the unit rewarding. Please feel free to let me know if you have any suggestions or would like help at any point along the way. Sincerely, James Neill, -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

PS Feel free to add {{MEP2010}} to your homepage (optional). -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I will try to be as helpful as I can. While I think the current situation of calling the book a assessment exercise is simply "a rose by any other name" situation, I don't think I will pursue the matter much further. I have been told I come on a bit too strong with my opinions, and I hope I haven't been too gruff thus far.
I have to warn you my contribution to the course is likely to be rather limited the first few weeks. I am in the middle of an international move and have no access to a library, course text, etc. (Even my access to the internet is limited to whenever I can "borrow" it :) ). So I expect most of my contribution will be proof reading other participants contributuions. Despite my philosophical differences in the placement of the book, I wanted to assure you I will be as constructive as I can to the books actual content. My own motivation in joining the course was to satisfy Abd's requirement that my opinion about placement has no weight unless I were a course participant, but somehow I expect my joining the course hasn't improved his opinion of my actions. Anyways, I am off topic, thanks for the welcome. Thenub314 13:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up that box of the Procrastination Textbook page - Having it float to the right is exactly what I wanted it to do. Sallybradford 07:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thekohser[edit source]

Be advised, Thekohser reappeared on Wikiversity (and did so in a rather opportune time). He might be appearing elsewhere. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Only person I know[edit source]

I've made a few comments at Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#.22Unbiased_set_of_eyes.22. --Draicone (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being so quick! I will take a look. Thenub314 14:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Probationary custodianship[edit source]

Welcome aboard - you are now a probationary custodian as per Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Thenub314. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Thenub314 23:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome aboard. First off please read and contribute to How to be a Wikimedia sysop. After that read and familiarize yourself with:

Wikiversity:Research process#What are research ethics? provides a condensed version of Wikiversity's research guidelines. Wikiversity:What is Wikiversity?/Draft might make understanding what Wikiversity is about easier than the current page and Wikiversity:Scope. -- darklama  23:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome and congratulations. That was easy, eh? I saw it, and had some concerns about your understanding of how Wikiversity is different from the other wikis, but, as long as you follow the restrictions that were set, and are responsive and actively seek to understand the differences, you should be fine. You get to make mistakes, you get to learn on the job, just try to be open and transparent. See also the proposed recusal policy at Wikiversity:Recusal. It's designed to be flexible, allowing necessary action, but also setting clear boundaries that protect the community, and, ironically, custodians themselves, against unnecessary disruption and dispute. I'd love to know what you think about it. Good luck. --Abd 23:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The only "homework" you're getting from me is to find where the backlogs are, so we can ask for assistance. Many hands make light work, and I think it's healthy if we try to share the load as much as possible. The wiki feels more like a wiki when we reach out and work together ;-). --SB_Johnny talk 23:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible places where backlogs might pile up: Wikiversity:Imports, Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, Category:Possible copyright violations, Special:UncategorizedCategories, Special:UncategorizedFiles, Special:UncategorizedPages, Special:UncategorizedTemplates, Special:UnusedCategories, Special:NewFiles, and Special:NewPages among others. -- darklama  23:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Your probation ended[edit source]

Just a note: your probationary period lapsed a while ago. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, things had gotten a bit complicated with my personal life and has been requiring all my attention, but I will try to straighten this out shortly. Thenub314 00:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey! I saw you had become inactive for a while there, but nice to know you're still around (and in good health, I trust). Whenever you're ready for the Q&A, I'm ready to recommend. --SB_Johnny talk 01:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest extending the probationary period for another month, if Thenub314 has the time to be more active this month, as that has become common practice for probationary custodians when life has required their attention, because the community doesn't usually have enough to go on to make a decision. -- darklama  13:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back[edit source]

Glad to hear your health issues have eased. --Abd 23:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Isfoa[edit source]

Apparently you intended to delete Isfoa per your comment at RCA, but it wasn't deleted. --Abd 14:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops! Not quite show how that went wrong but I have deleted it once again, apparently for the first time. Thenub314 16:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Happens to me frequently. Thanks, Thenub. When I looked for the original deletion discussion, I found that, attempting to archive the original discussion, and possibly with a bit of a flap over closings, I never copied the original discussion to the archive page. I must have closed the edit window. I've modified my archiving procedure to emphasize verifying that the save to the archive is complete before going ahead with the removal edit.... --Abd 16:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

WV:RFD#User:Abd/Wikipedia/List of self-reverted edits[edit source]

The deletion request template reads: Nominator: Before proposing this page's deletion, please make an effort to first understand the purpose of this page by making use of the discussion page. It would be appreciated if you would follow this in the future, instead of going immediately for deletion. Thanks. --Abd 21:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, what would be the purpose of the page, I will try to keep an open mind. What is the purpose of listing all of your self revisions?
Read the RfD, it's there. But to repeat this, the page lists all known examples of self-reversion by editors under ban, not just mine, and will eventually show what happened with each edit. Read the policy proposal linked from the RfD. You might check out what happened with Thekohser, but that was not the only successful example of self-reversion, as used to develop cooperation between a banned user and the community. PJHaseldine was the first example. When first proposed on Wikipedia, self-reversion was not opposed, it had positive comment from an arbitrator. But when I used it, much later, it was opposed. The faction that I was confronting, to make a long story short, hated the idea that all the people they had banned might be able to contribute, it's exactly what they did not want. But I'm not doing this to condemn them, and this evidence won't be used that way, or, if it is, not by me. The evidence will be used to show that strict enforcement of bans, when a banned editor cooperates with the ban by self-reversion, does more harm than good, wastes administrator time, and prevents the addition of good content, without producing any value. If self-reversion were established in policy as a way to bypass a ban, without harm, there would be no such wasted time, yet banned editors would still not be able to make contributions that stand unless an editor in good standing reverts them back in. That's how it worked here, Thenub. You might try checking out the history. In the PJHaseldine case, the first time SR was tried, the editor who brought back the edit was the very editor who had asked for PJH to be banned. When PJH was later advised not to do self-reversion, because it had been suggested by Abd and was therefore a Bad Idea, he violated the ban in a different way and was blocked. (The whole sequence was tragic.) He happens to be a world-class expert on the topic he was banned from. Loss for Wikipedia. Gain for? --Abd 00:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
So, to answer your question directly, the purpose is to study the self reversion process and derive understanding from it, both for application at other wikis as well as to help develop our own policies, basing them on actual experience, not on speculation (which is too often how it's done). This could be in mainspace, actually, but it's active, not mature. See also Wikimedia_Ethics/Response_Testing_on_WMF_projects. You should also be aware that other attempts to use Wikiversity to study "Wikimedia ethics" led to serious disruption, because the pages were often attack pages, included serious incivility and outing of editors, and the Wikiversity community was deeply divided by this, particularly when there was intervention by Jimbo. I'd rather not see a repeat of that, and the Wikimedia Ethics page is an example of how I helped conduct research in a way that, while there was some worry at first, did not result in problems.
The subject page does not blame anyone. Does it? Some serious problems are noted, such as a policy violation, the use of revision deletion merely because an edit was from a banned editor, that's about the extent of it. You want to see criticism, look at Wikipedia Review. --Abd 00:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
By the way, you should not have reverted that RfD template back in, you should have discussed that first. Please try to respect the Wikiversity way of dealing with disagreements. Revert warring is not part of it. Had there been a strong reason, necessitating that action, sure, but ... there wasn't, and I'd have consented, I believe. It would have been better for me to replace it, don't you agree? Consider this given that you really should have discussed before requesting deletion in the first place! Was someone complaining to you? --Abd 00:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The RfD is mine, not a complaint. It page simply caught my eye looking at the RC list. So if I understand correctly, your conducting an experiment on the WP folks and collecting the data here at WV. That might be fine, we allow OR, but your conducting an experiment on people, without telling them and without gaining their consent. How does that live up to any sense of ethics? Thenub314 00:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
"Without telling them?" This was all documented first on Wikipedia, and only came here when the Talk page access allowing that was shut down. If what I'm doing is "human experimentation," so is any good-faith editing. At first, all edits were identified, and there were links placed to the page here, later, so it's all transparent, except, of course, that true socking eventually started, with EnergyNeutral. No, there has been no other socking WRT cold fusion, you got that right. I made some self-reverted edits "per ban," and you should know that my position has always been that cooperative edits like this, from anyone, unless egregiously disruptive in themselves, or, say, voluminous and repetitive, don't violate bans, and that's a critical point that is well worth establishing, and to establish it in the past has always taken demonstrations, people don't get it in the abstract.
Meanwhile, you didn't sign this edit to Wikipedia. In it, you state, "*Support As a community member as and custodian at Wikiversity as well as a wikipedian. Abd's "experiment" on the wikipedia community causes disruption here, has been attracting vandals at WV. He is damaging both communities, and severing the cord completely seems the most likely way to get him to move on." You are using your status as a custodian here to promote my ban there, and there is, so far, no disruption here from the documentation, other than the RfD you insisted on filing, and the only disruption there is in block/ban enforcement (originally, that's all there was, since the edits were self-reverted), and unnecessary collateral damage, because using massive range blocks to deter even harmless, quickly-reverted vandalism, is deprecated). You mention vandals being attracted. I've seen no evidence of that. There were those two comments that were mysterious, which were likely more related to another user here than to me. Whether I'm banned there, instead of being merely indef blocked, has no effect on either my activities there or here, and there was no revert warring, for example, over my edits, no claim that "I'm not banned, therefore you should leave my edits alone." (The kinds of steps often taken for banned editors instead of indeffed had already been started, with complete MfD of my user space pages, shutdown and blanking of my user and talk pages, etc., and revision deletion was being used to hide my edits. So being formally banned will have no effect.). Thenub, I'm disappointed, but I guess this is how I find out who is who. --Abd 02:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I can understand your disappointment. We have before this, been getting along quite well. It also troubles me to have to harm our newly forged comradery. And outside of the WP stuff you've been doing great work here. I hope that you decided WP is not worth your time and continue your other work here.
As I have said before to you in private, I find your actions with respect to WP ethically lacking. For example, there is no remorse for the other IP editors who tripped the edit filter designed to stop you. It seems to me that you feel that you didn't create the filter, so it is not your responsibility. You really seem to delight in how foolish the admins at WP are in their ultimately ineffective attempts to stop you. The fact I disagree with your actions is a point I have always been very clear about.
I appreciate that you feel non-disruptive edits are never a problem even if a user is banned/blocked. But if you stop to think about I think you'll recall this has always been a point at which we disagree.
As far as attracting vandals, I did take these mysterious edits to the checkusers immediately. Regardless of any of my other feelings, I will not let you or anyone be harassed, and I wanted it to be nipped in the bud. This was why a steward came by to revert the vandalism.
If the actions of the admins at WP seem extreme, try to keep in mind that they may be exasperated. Playing whack a mole from the losing side is really no fun at all, and it is very tempting to take more and more extreme measures to get it to stop. Thenub314 03:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I ask you to reserve judgment on what I'm doing at Wikipedia. It really is very little, I'm not actually doing anything there right now, I've done most of what I intended. If you look at the documentation page, you will see that it is not actually critical of the administrators, it simply describes what they did; if there are any exceptions, I really should remove them, that's not my purpose or method. The edit filter was completely unnecessary, and quite unusual, and I can't be responsible for its poor design and implementation, I certainly did not expect that. I tried to remediate the damage, and the remediation was reverted with no concern for the innocent users harmed. What's being shown is extreme response, instead of what guidelines propose: w:WP:RBI. Some administrators understand that, but some are fanatics about "stopping evasion," and that's happened here as well as there. The goal of admin action should be protection of the wiki and the community, and when the "police action" causes more damage than what the police are attempting to prevent, something has gone drastically out of balance. On Wikipedia, I've seen editors at an article suffering from frequent vandalism be refused range blocks, because reverting the vandalism was quick and easy, and range blocks cause collateral damage. Yet, with my edits, range blocks were quickly applied, and with an incorrect statement about how many legitimate edits were coming from that range. What I was trying to do with self-reversion works when the administrative community responds within rational protection of the wiki, but when things like revision deletion and massive range blocks are used, damage is caused. Normally, nobody sees this! Normally, block evaders don't document their evading edits! But that's exactly what self-reversion suggests, and it makes enforcement easy. IP socking is very difficult to track without the kind of documentation I've been creating. I'm exposing some long-term problems, given a unique opportunity, that I've completely given up the idea of returning to editing Wikipedia, other than odds and ends as I've shown.
Of course they are exasperated. But nobody demanded that they play whack-a-mole. If they had ignored the self-reverted edits, those would only have come back if a regular, legitimate editor reverted them back in. They are playing a dysfunctional game, with no profit for them or the project, and they do so by choice. You are right. They are playing the losing side. Why? And I can tell you that the answer should, in fact, suggest that they revise their attitude or put down the tools. The project would benefit, and so would they.
Meanwhile, don't worry. We will continue to cooperate, I assume. WP is not important to me, Wikiversity is. --Abd 04:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
In response to the second to last paragraph. Sure someone asked them to play whack-a-mole, albeit indirectly, their community. Their community trusted them with tools to do various tasks that include ban or block enforcement. When they encounter users that the community declared are blocked or banned, then it is the job they volunteered for to enforce it. As an admin you enforce the community consensus and not your own opinion. Turning a blind eye, might have been harmless in your case, perhaps in many cases. But ultimately it would lead (IMO) to a very corrupt system, and generally speaking shouldn't be done in anything but the most benign cases. To some WP editors your edits are harassment, they are seen as just poking your tongue out at concept that your blocked or banned. Perhaps the content of them is uncontroversial, but the existence of edits is not. Consider the following hypothetical actions of WMC, who is supposed to by Arbcom order supposed to clear of you. Imagine he went around self-revert in/out a comment that said "Abd has no scientific degrees and I think he promotes cold fusion only only as a way of promoting his commercial products." in every conversation you had about cold fusion. Wouldn't that violate his ban, regardless if it were self reverted away. Even more it is clearly harassment. Even more by the self revision scheme someone in conflict with you decides to revert that edit back in. To me this seems like it would land back at Arbcom with them wondering "Didn't we tell these two to stay clear of each other?" Thenub314 17:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
We may have a deep philosophical difference here. The wiki system, as it is, doesn't actually determine real community positions, but only apparent ones. The safeguard is that no administrator is obligated to act, ever. Administrators, in how they act, as well, have discretion. Acting against an apparent consensus is a problem, but "failing to act" in support of an apparent consensus is no problem at all, because no administrator has a specific obligation to do anything. When an administrator *chooses* to act in a way that causes damage, the administrator is responsible for this, and the community, should it awaken to the situation, will require the administrator to exercise due caution. There is no question that administrators blocking my IP for editing while blocked were acting within normal discretion. The issue would be when they go beyond RBI, into range blocks and edit filtering and revision deletion, which cause various kinds of collateral damage. RBI does not do damage, because any editor can undo the reversion.
Is it prohibited to stick my tongue out? No wonder I had trouble. Have you ever read User:Abd/Rule 0? I think someone just rescued it to their user space.
Thenub, administrators routinely, on Wikipedia, turn a blind eye to gross offenses against consensus and the policies and guidelines, when the offenses are by editors they see as "helpful." I.e., whom they agree with. RBI is very simple. Going beyond it is not. This is really moot, though, because self-reversion was first proposed as a change to WP:BAN, and had only positive comment. Another editor used it, and it worked: self-reversion under ban produced positive content changes through cooperation between a topic banned editor and the editor who had requested the ban. That's quite a trick. The proposal was that, unless the edits were otherwise harmful in themselves -- you come up with an example -- these edits would not be considered ban violations. Note that this means that all these edits would have been reverted, but it is self-enforcing. This requires less adminstrative attention, not more. However, do realize, most banned editors are not inclined to be cooperative. Self-reversion is only for those who are capable of and inclined to cooperation.
Self-reversion was not intended as a carte blanche. Anything that requires revision deletion, for example, would not be protected by self-reversion. Gross incivility would not be protected by self-reversion. Deceptive presentation of sources, as an example, an attempt to deceive other editors by misrepresenting the content of a source, would not be protected. One can come up with lots of examples. And none of them, including the WMC ban, would apply to what I've done.
Basically, you can imagine a mindless implementation, and then, of course, shoot it full of holes through how you imagined it.
Self-reversion was only shot down, later, when I used it, once, to attempt to fix a referencing error on the cold fusion page. WMC then blocked me, even though he'd earlier said that blocking an editor for a helpful edit was "silly." The edit, as it turned out, wasn't quite correct yet, but it caused the error to be quickly identified. The result was helpful, there is no doubt. Then people piled in to claim "a ban is a ban." Which is a flat-out violation of w:WP:IAR. Preventing helpful edits damages the project.
Self-reverted edits are self-identifying, so enforcement is far easier. If an admin is concerned, it takes a moment to see that the edit is fully reverted, and in that moment, any serious problem with the edit, such as incivility, would be seen. Self-reversion, again, is not protection against actual disruption, merely against being blocked for what is, on the face, a decent edit. The biggest problem, in fact, is that the edits are not necessarily noticed.
It's another matter, but if you look at the bans, you will find that the only harm that was alleged was *discussion* of the article text and issues on the Cold fusion article talk page. It was alleged that I was pushing a point of view, but COI editors are under restrictions precisely because that is expected.
There is also little harm if an admin blocks the IP. Harm only arises with more strenuous enforcement efforts, like range blocks.
This is the craziness: the alternative, as far as what Wikipedia can enforce, to self-reverted edits, is not no editing. It is concealed, anonymous editing, with or without sock puppets. Which one is more disruptive and damaging? Which one wastes more valuable administrator time? How much time has been wasted with the current ban discussion, with no gain anywhere, as far as I can tell? They were already enforcing the blocks as aggressively as possible. (Unless they are prepared to do far, far more damage through truly massive range blocks. And that's been done, before, and rejected.) (There is a claim being made about 3RR, which is based in a wikilawyered intrepretation that might have an editor sanctioned for 3RR violation for reverting edits from a banned editor. That was a non-existent situation, isn't even a possibility with me. I was actually, years ago, in a revert war with a banned editor, and was momentarily blocked, and as soon as the admin saw that this was a banned editor, I'd made sure that it couldn't be missed, I was unblocked. Suppose that editor had merely been blocked. My view is that a block is a site ban, declared ad-hoc by an individual administrator, and that blocked editors lose rights to revert, pending resolution of the block, it's a far simpler interpretation that doesn't require deciding "ban." What will usually happen is that a knowledgeable editor will request RfPP, semipro, and will get it quickly.
By the way, it can be thought that what I've written above is simply a defiant position. Perhaps, but what should be realized is that socking when blocked and banned is common. Wikipedia sanctions normal human behavior, and it should be very careful about that. Rather, attempts should be made to negotiate with blocked and banned editors, because "solutions" that strip them of dignity won't work, not with real human beings. Some go away in disgust, that's all, so it seems to work, as the general bad-will toward Wikipedia in the world increases by one more person. --Abd 19:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy closure of RFD you filed[edit source]

[1]. I realized, Thenub, that the RFD being open created a need to justify keeping the page, and certain necessary arguments would then be maintaining discussion of the user's behavior, the very thing that we are attempting to stop. Since deletion under present circumstances would be disruptive (for example, the user was continuing to edit, and I found it necessary to warn the user, on the Talk page, and that warning should be visible), I've speedy closed. Your nomination was based partly on the assumption that the user was not going to continue editing, right?

Thought you'd like to know. --Abd 21:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, thanks for the heads up. Thenub314 21:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary[edit source]

I suggest you use something like "copyright" for the edit summary when using {{subst:file copyright}} to inform people about their uploads. People may be confused as to what your intentions are when you summarize the edit as a warning. I have observed that some people find warnings to be unpleasant, discouraging, or unnecessarily confrontational. -- darklama  16:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Thenub314 21:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I had a similar thought, Darklama. I've started, when I use a template, just copying the template, braces and all, into the edit summary. That really is simple with welcomes, I'm copying the same template in the edit box and in the summary field.... --Abd 23:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Assume AGF[edit source]

Are you familiar with this essay? -- darklama  22:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have read it before, but I'll take your comment to mean that I could use a re-read. :) Possibly true, though I wasn't particularly heated at the time. It just struck mean that saying the action of some group of editors amounts to anger/vengeance as opposed to reasoned thinking is a bit harsh. Thenub314 22:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I sometimes make the mistake of suggesting someone should AGF too. I think suggesting someone should AGF can happen in any discussion, heated or not. I was mainly thinking of the bits about how suggesting someone should AGF often reflects a rush to judgment itself, people often don't see how they are not assuming good faith, and to extend courtesies you would like to receive to others. This can easily be a recursive thing with a need for Assume Assume Assume Good Faith to remind people not to point to AAGF either -- darklama  23:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
This was in reference to my general judgment of the meta ban discussion for Poetlister. It's not a judgment of specific editors, because specifics may vary. Further, it's not a matter of failure to assume good faith. I assume good faith for all those editors, i.e., I think they they commented with good intentions. However, a lynch mob may also have good intentions, to protect the community from a "monster." When I see people responding with "reasons" that make no sense when examined closely, when close examination is avoided or ignored, I do start to suspect that something is coloring the responses, something that is not necessarily being openly acknowledged. Sometimes it's obvious.
This is now being taken to meta. Why? We have two Wikiversity users arguing, one very strongly, there, against what has been local consensus here and on Wikibooks and elsewhere. The consensus on this issue, when it's been considered, has always been clear. Those discussions, though, are often disruptive, because there are users, mostly in the minority, with very strong opinions that appear to "support the WMF." As if the WMF has some clear position on this; in fact, the WMF doesn't want to touch this with a ten-foot-pole, it could create serious legal hazards for them, which may be why they never have. The real danger here is to community health. I saw what happened here, in early 2010, repeating to some extent what happened in 2008, when users believed that outsiders were coming in to dominate. Activity fell, seriously. People left in disgust. --Abd 23:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
My question is about philosophy and encouraging reflection in general. If I had a specific reference in mind, I would have pointed it out. A specific reference here, just acts to distract. AGF itself can be distracting as it doesn't explain what the writer intends for the reader to do differently or reflect on. -- darklama  00:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
It is a good matter to reflect upon. And I probably should think about it a bit, I tend to be a bit more haphazard with my edit summaries then with the text I post. Thenub314 03:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete copyright info[edit source]

I noticed you have included {{no license}} for some files with a self-license. I think not having {{information}} may be no big deal because all the needed info is present in other ways. Source is "own work", date can use the uploaded date because that is the date of release to Wikiversity, and author is the username of the uploader. -- darklama  20:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to just assume in every case, though I grant the vast majority of cases I tagged today these would probably safe assumptions. But examples like File:How to Effective EU Simulations.pdf which bare a university and professors name, I was uncomfortable just assuming the "own work" with the upload date, etc. And I kind of thought I should treat all cases similarly. I also was thinking of spending time moving compatible images to commons, and they require this information, and I wouldn't want to add it if I didn't know for sure. Thenub314 21:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • [2] etc. Actions like this are extremely helpful, thanks. --Abd 18:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Full custodianship[edit source]

Congratulations - you are now a full custodian[3]. Thank-you for helping Wikiversity. Sincerely, James. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Thenub314 14:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Congrats! --SB_Johnny talk 15:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations and good luck. --Abd 15:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


  • It seems to have taken a year too long for it to happen, but it is good that it finally did. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks guys. I think the delay is entirely my own fault, but I happy now that it is done. Thenub314 19:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously?[edit source]

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

please be careful[edit source]

[5][6], that's revert warring. Your first removal wasn't revert warring, but it wasn't proper; because if anyone has responded to a comment, they should not be removed. They should be struck, or, in this case, since the *discussion* was allegedly off-topic (I'm not sure I agree on that), collapsed. Sometimes these things can be "archived to history," as well. It should be easy to find and read them. I did revert you, but only to set up the collapse, not to keep a state restoring what was there before. Your revert removed not only your content again, thus re-establishing a prior state you had created (one definition of revert warring, if done without seeking consensus), it removed the collapse, and if, as was being claimed, this was off-topic, you left extensive comment exposed that had been collapsed by me, thus fully reverting my action, without any necessity. Please be careful. --Abd 19:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't fall under what I consider revert warring, but on that point we will have to agree to disagree. As far as not leaving your comment in a collapse, that was indeed a mistake. Thenub314 21:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. How would you define revert warring? On Wikipedia, there is w:WP:Edit warring which makes it clear that revert warring starts before 3RR. What I found on Wikipedia is that there is strong reluctance to define policy clearly, sometimes. It's a structural problem, unclarity leads to greater freedom for sysops. This is why it can become difficult to create policy once there is a set of sysops attached to the status quo (users as well, but the problem exists more seriously with sysops).
Revert warring at the level of a single repeat is not generally a blockable offense, and it shouldn't be. However, it damages the consensus process, which is why I pointed to it. I acknowledge and appreciate your recognition of the error you made, instead of attempting to understand and satisfy my concerns. Revert warring is often a sign of some kind of impatience, some lack of readiness to discuss and find mutually satisfactory solutions, combined with some sense of urgency about one's preferred state. --Abd 02:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure I have thought enough of the issue of how to define a revert war to give a good answer off the cuff. I can tell you in practice, I generally see the first revert back to an prior state as a way of adding emphasis. I don't believe it generally harms the consensus process, but is instead occasionally part of it.
If you have trouble understanding my actions, it probably comes from our different points of view. You may recall how strongly I argued Ottava's works should be deleted when he requested it. Indeed my arguemtnts were based upon my belief that is a fundamental issue of respect for contributors. I understand you didn't/don't agree with this point of view, but I maintain my right to retract my comments at will. I had noticed you had replied which is why I left a comment that my remarks were removed. Otherwise I would have simply wiped them clean. Thenub314 03:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I get that. But it left my comments naked, as it were, cut off from the context in which they were made. Since the objection was to an alleged disruption of the process, presumably by some commentary that was off-topic, based on what SBJ wanted, the collapse would seem to cover that, so why you did not accept that remains mysterious to me -- and unexplained, for "I have the right to do it" -- you don't, necessarily, on Wikipedia that might have been considered disruptive -- isn't a reason.
Revert warring doesn't begin with the first revert, unless possibly if the revert is unexplained. I.e., user proposes change by making an edit. User disagrees by reverting. That is not revert warring, unless maybe the same user had made the same revert previously. If there is standing text, apparently some prior defacto consensus existing on it, someone comes along to "improve it," and is reverted, that's not revert warring. Grey area would have to do with a longer look into history. If a user is consistently reverting to the same preferred state without attempts to discuss and negotiate consensus, that's revert warring, and what can be very difficult to handle is tag team revert warring, where users trade off reverting. Even two or three users watchlisting the same page and cooperating to own it can be difficult to address, wikis tend to break down when that happens.
When we contribute works and writing to Wikiversity, they aren't exactly our own any more. There were some real problems with Ottava's requests, and I tried to point them out discretely, but some (you?) didn't get it. Basically, he'd used a different account for some of those, revealing his real name. He was upset and acting in haste and bitterness, and I was suggesting a slowdown, hoping he'd take the hint and withdraw the request. I also respect contributors, but isn't this a bit strange that I opposed hosting the Standard Stop Agreement in my user space, but wanted to leave it in Wikiversity space, since it was of general application and had already been used by another custodian, and you seemed to support the move to my user space over my objections? Or did you? --Abd 04:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
As far as a reason goes, it was simply that I was embarrassed that I hadn't read SBJ's comments more carefully. Ownership and licensing are two different issues. We always own our words, I cannot revoke wikimedia's license to use them. But if anyone violates the terms of the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses using content I contributed to, I may personally sue them because I would be an author they didn't acknowledge. Moveover if this did happen and I were financially able, I would so and pursue the matter unrelentingly. My second motivation for removing them was to lead by example, at some point I was hoping you'd do the same. Thenub314 04:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Heya[edit source]

As you may well be aware, I was a probationary custodian here until some rather gross incivility on my request for full custodianship page led me to have a mini-nervous breakdown and resign. Now Abd's not a custodian, and John Bessa is banned from interacting with me, I think I'll be able to deal with things better. I'd like to help out with administrative tasks, particularly copyright clean-up. I asked SBJ to re-mentor me, but while he'd like me to be a custodian, he'd rather someone else mentored me for round 2. Would you consider taking me on ? Thanks. --Simone 11:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am a bit hesitant for two reasons, first I am still a bit green myself on WV specific stuff. Secondly, I have very little time between now and mid January, my real life threatens to consume much of my time between now and then. Have you considered asking Jtneil? He is both very experienced, and very even tempered, all around a good chap to work with. If you haven't found a mentor by mid Jan. pop back by and remind me. Thenub314 05:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for considering me. I'll ask James. --Simone 05:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunate[edit source]

I just want you to know that I consider your recent action (essentially two-thirds of all your edits since a 7-week hiatus from Wikiversity) very disappointing and unfortunate. Where a new user with only two edits to Wikiversity ever took his opportunity to attack another user's thoughtful commentary with insinuations of "sockpuppetry" and an ulterior agenda, when I took to pointing out that attack as hypocritical (by vehicle of parody), you elected to censor my parody (without asking me to refactor), yet let the initial drive-by attack stand uncontested. I view this sort of lopsided instigation as completely needless on this project. Thekohser (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Mohammad nashir' Page[edit source]

As you have deleted this page, you have willingly deleted months of work, which was all from personal and contributive work, this work was voluntarily given to help the community and has not been promotional since day 1, however you have conceived as such. There was a clear statement on the discussion page about how the page is non-promotional and reasons why, but you chose to ignore this.

I would kindly ask that you return this page to its former self, as this page has been under development for a long time and has been beneficent to many.

In terms of the criteria of WikiVersity, there is no substance to say that this page does not match your criteria, however even through evidence in the references, you still deleted it.

Please return this page and if you cannot as it is permanently deleted, I would appreciate an apology and a method of retracting the page back to its aid to many.

Yours, tw3ak1t.

I am sorry in the delay in replying. I do not believe the page in question fits into wikiversity's mission of building educational cooperative learning resources and communities. The page can be undeleted for a time so that you may export the work you've put in thus far and place the page on a more appropriate wiki. While I acknowledge the page was referenced, it was primarily a promotional page for the academic in question. His biography at wikipedia, if one exists, may be a more appropriate place for some of the content. Thenub314 (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

welcome back[edit source]

Long time no see. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, life has been fairly busy. (I have moved 5 times in three years for example.) But I poke my head in periodically at different projects I work on. The NSF likes my latest project though, so life is not too bad. What's new with you? Thenub314 (discusscontribs) 23:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Let's see! Almost six months ago, my 12-year-old daughter came to live with me. She was having a terrible time with her mom, who doesn't know how to raise kids like her as they approach the teenage years. They can be "difficult." I do know, not only from having done it five times before, but also from extensive and recent training.
It had gotten really bad, there was violence involved, we were knee-deep in social workers, police, blah, blah. I had to deal with a rather gruff Department of Children and Families worker, they nearly yanked her out of my care when she was expelled from her private school and I didn't promptly enroll her in the local Middle Prison School, but that's all blown over, her self-generated educational plan has been approved by the local Superintendent of Schools, she's doing so well that the social service agencies involved are closing the cases, she's dealing with life situations that would knock most people down, and she's dealing with them with cheerfulness and joy, and, in general, I feel about as validated as a father as I could imagine. At almost 70, that's a rare opportunity.
While I was blocked on Wikiversity, I mostly wrote about cold fusion, on a private list for scientists, and travelled to w:SRI International to visit the world's foremost and longest-established cold fusion lab, in November, 2012, and I attended the w:International Conference on Cold Fusion at the University of Missouri last July. Fun.
I identified what the field needed to get moving (aside from an available commercial product, which might never happen, or take a long time, if the conditions that set up the reaction are intrinsically difficult to maintain), and set up a nonprofit to facilitate it.
What is needed is not only basic confirmational research, organized and funded to deal with sluggish mountains of vague skepticism, addressing every reasonably proposed artifact, and so I incorporated a Massachusetts nonprofit to do this, with identified board members.
This is not necessarily a popular idea within the field, because research dollars are scarce, and the original research has already been adequately confirmed (as to what would be ordinary), such that it's highly unlikely that the basic conclusion (unexpected nuclear reactions at low temperature) is incorrect. Most think that the "establishment" will never bend, will go on believing whatever they want to believe until they die. On the other hand, what I'm proposing was the unanimous recommendation of the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. It's only that it was never funded by anyone.
I do have the support of the foremost scientists in the field. Most of my expenses to go to Missouri were funded by donations.
And then my daughter came to live with me and I stopped doing anything. My long-term personal issue: starting things I don't finish. This is what age has brought, at least I imagine so: it takes me longer to shift gears. It's a kind of tunnel vision, coupled with ready distraction. I can imagine myself in a nursing home, watching commercials on TV with fascination. Life fascinates me.
So, here, I've spent two weeks collecting data, cross-wiki, becoming expert on something hardly anyone cares about. Why me? Because nobody else is doing it. Because it's there. (While much of the evidence has been deleted, much has not, so it is still possible to determine what happened.) Because I see that many users are repeating claims, often false claims, without verifying them (what I saw many times on en.wikipedia).
There is a social science name for this, a "cascade." When a cascade takes over in the sciences, and when it's not rooted in the scientific method, it can take a generation to overcome. That happened with cold fusion, and I've seen it happen in other fields (such as the role of dietary fat with heart disease). Easily, it can be twenty or thirty years before real research starts to break through the noise. Before then, any research is rejected as fringe or dangerous, it can't get funded, and a whole generation of scientists are raised to believe that a view was confirmed or rejected many years before, so why are we still talking about it? Yet if one looks back, there was a consensus, all right, but not based on controlled experiment or neutral analysis.
So, by the way: I've worked with the antispam administrators for years, making granted requests for removal of web sites from the global blacklist. I know what happens, and it is often not governed by policy, and stated policies are violated. That does not mean that the actions are wrong. In fact, most of the actions are proper and necessary. It's the exceptions that bite. This current one is a doozie. Were it not for political considerations, I'd already have filed multiple requests on meta.
The political consideration: the most-involved steward apparently believes I am acting because I have a grudge against him, is also a meta administrator, and has previously blocked users there for criticizing stewards. So I'm not going to meta until I have all the ducks in a row. And I'm not going there to try to take him out. I really want policy clarified, and, then, enforced. The antispammers need clear authority to do what they do well, and the community needs protection against excessive action, needs to be able to predict what will be sanctioned and what will not. Standard stuff with police. One of the wiki problems is that judicial and executive authority have been mixed.
That worked fine for rapid creation of content. It did not work fine for long-term reliability. Are we ready to move into reliability? --Abd (discusscontribs) 13:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I am glad to hear that things are now in a better place for your daughter. I know first hand how difficult/unpleasant children's services can be. Good luck with the non-profit. I am glad that in mathematics we simply check a proof to see if it is correct. Since there is a more or less absolute standard of truth, one never encounters this type of issue. Mostly the disagreements that occur are about how usefulness/taste, but never whether an underlying subject is correct/incorrect.
I recall a lot of your work with blacklists and what have you, I too have been around for years :). I will come back to the other questions when I have a bit more time. Thenub314 (discusscontribs) 20:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Welcome back. Nice to see you around using your custodian rights. --Goldenburg111 19:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, it is nice to be noticed.
Thenub, I really loved it when Wikiversity was more active, how long do you plan to be active? --Goldenburg111 15:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Well I do not have specific plans. After a long sequence of post docs I have finally got a tenure track job, so hopefully with some more stability in my life I can be around a bit more active. Now, I still have to worry about getting tenure, so from time to time I will disappear as I need to take care of things on the research end of things. But I expect to be around for a while. Thenub314 (discusscontribs) 18:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
That's good to hear, thanks. --Goldenburg111 00:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Your administrator status on the Wikiversity[edit source]

Hello. A policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, etc.) was adopted by community consensus in 2013. According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing activity on wikis with no inactivity policy.

You meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no log actions for 2 years) on the wiki listed above. Since that wiki does not have its own rights review process, the global one applies.

If you want to keep your rights, you should inform the community of the wiki about the fact that the stewards have sent you this information about your inactivity. If the community has a discussion about it and then wants you to keep your rights, please contact the stewards at m:Stewards' noticeboard, and link to the discussion of the local community, where they express their wish to continue to maintain the rights.

If you wish to resign your rights, you can reply here or request removal of your rights on Meta.

If there is no response at all after approximately one month, stewards will proceed to remove your administrator and/or bureaucrat rights. In ambiguous cases, stewards will evaluate the responses and will refer a decision back to the local community for their comment and review. If you have any questions, please contact the stewards. Matiia (discusscontribs) 04:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Removed. Matiia (discusscontribs) 15:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)