User talk:Abd

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Obsolete comment[edit]

I may also be contacted on my Wikiversity talk page, v:User:Abd. I will keep email notification of edits to this page on, but am turning off other watchlist notification, as meta traffic is mostly a distraction for me.

There are a few projects hanging here that I may work on occasionally, a long comment to summarize, a research project into RfC history, like that. I will not be working on active maintenance here, as I had begun, particularly with RfC, because this requires community support that is lacking. --Abd (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Above struck --Abd (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


I'm sorry if my tone in my last few edits has discouraged you. I encourage you to reconsider your retirement; I definitely want to see you come back. You are an asset to the project, but this personal dispute has gone on for too long. Please forgive me. I did not say I would block you or encourage doing so anywhere. I overreacted. Sorry. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, PiRSquared17. It was not a personal dispute, for me. That what I saw and pointed out was not independently recognized, more than a little, and handled, and not just by me, means that I'm too far ahead of consensus here. The work I do can be difficult, and without actual support, impossible. It will just irritate, as apparently it irritated you.
The response of "you two stop it!" has led to a long term block for me before (two years!), when I simply asked for admin attention to a situation. It wasn't personal then, either, for me. It was very personal for the other user, his entire purpose had become to attack my work, it was obvious payback (he'd been desysopped. ultimately, from his reactions when I short-blocked him for incivility -- two hours! -- and he then became maximally disruptive, filing desysop procedures, not just for me, but for every bureaucrat, threatening users with being blocked by stewards -- any day now! -- and on and on, for something like a year. Mostly I ignored it until he edited a policy that had been standing for years, over a matter of weight, and then I went to the admin request page asked for review and was blocked. They were tired of seeing the XXX and Abd show. Of course, they were seeing it all the time because of what he was doing! He was also blocked, but he didn't care, he had gotten what he wanted. The blocking admin wrote "until you two work it out." But he didn't want to work anything out, he was quite happy with the situation, he'd already attempted to get all his work deleted, he was gone. He was unblocked, later, and really never came back.
There was no consensus for that block, there were attempts by others to appeal it, there was also no major consensus for unblock, and my unblock template was unanswered for two years. Probably a good thing for me, actually, I did other things that were extraordinarily valuable for me and for others. I make a real difference in people's lives, routinely.
This situation was not the same. I saw this user who was creating process that was wasting steward time, and I confronted that; you observed that interaction. His response was similar to what he'd done in the past. Fine. His behavior actually improved, as to steward request pages, he stopped filing requests that were blatantly contrary to policy.
But then he was on my case about everything, reviewing whatever I did and finding something wrong with it. Now, in itself, this can actually be useful, but, often, he was clueless as to how wikis handle things. The blanking of others' comments on RfCs or Talk pages, the filing of admin requests over minor perceived slights, revert warring over RfC closes, behavior that would get him blocked quickly on Wikipedia, with the only person warning him -- usually -- being me, is not a tenable situation. I don't own this place.
When he was warned by a steward or his actions were reversed by someone else, such as that "silliness" about transcluding the large talk page on the small RfC page, he would accept it. The exact same arguments given by me, no, he was going to argue to the end. That's a clue that it was totally personal.
The situation here wasn't new. As you might suspect, the behavior I'm describing was long-term, I saw it on Wikiversity two years ago, and at that time, on meta, I'd prevented him from getting a user globally locked from a radically misleading request. (The user was only editing Wikiversity by that time, I'd encouraged him, he was very young, and I trained him to edit nondisruptively. He responded to respect and care. He is now on track to being the youngest WMF sysop ever, it could happen. He's already a 'crat on a non-WMF wiki (The Test Wiki), a fact that proved useful when I needed sysop access there to test block behavior to confirm a bug. It took him minutes to grant the request.)
However, if I point to what I know, I'm seen as making a personal attack, and I'm taking a risk even by responding to you here. It's not just you, PiRSquared, there is a steward/meta administrator who has been making threatening noises. I get a lot of Thanking notifications, but those will not necessarily translate into support when some admin gets tired of seeing what I do. And that can easily happen if I'm active here.
I need occasional meta access for my work at Wikiversity, and, in fact, I've been neglecting work there, by getting involved here. So I've been concerned about that anyway. The work I do there can actually make a difference for the planet, meta is ... how important?
The community here has not been treating RfCs as important, and that's a result of the disorder and chaos in RfC process. And I'm not seeing enough support to be able to fix it. Maybe in another year or two.
Thank you for your kind apology, but it's not enough. If I can be of any assistance, feel free to contact me on my en.Wikiversity talk page. --Abd (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
You'll probably be back. Wikis are an addiction; and since when did addictions require that the person intellectually believe that feeding the addiction is the optimal behavior? Other tasks seem more productive, but if they aren't as stimulating to the pleasure centers of the brain, then the person will go into withdrawal and probably eventually relapse. Leucosticte (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure that you'll have a more fulfilling time at Wikiversity. As you've said, you were too invested in "distraction" here. Good luck at Wikiversity. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Potayto, potahto[edit]

What you call "sticking a finger in a socket" I call "distributing pearls of wisdom". [Full comment at,_potahto permanent link].Leucosticte (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It makes no difference what you call it. Call it "harmless discussion," call it "just examining the truth," call it "opening the eyes of the blind," the socket doesn't care. Human beings are capable of being more than reactive robots, but it takes special conditions. You are not creating them, you are simply triggering basic survival responses. And you are doing this out of your own survival responses, not from the realm of possibility. So it's an echo chamber, you are arguing with yourself. --Abd (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
blocked, [ talk page and email access blocked]. Utterly unsurprising, swift, clean.
Meta is a coordinating wiki, not a place to debate social philosophy. Substantial freedom exists here, normally, to create essays, but not if they are considered disruptive.
I reviewed what happened overnight. You poked the bear, but you were treated kindly. Your talk page access was shut off because you used your talk page for what you had been warned not to do. I do not know how you used email, it is possible that you could get email access restored if you need it. You have my email address, if you want to request email be restored, ask me and I will investigate the possibility.
If you continue to argue this matter, on WMF wikis, I predict you will be globally banned, with a wide agreement, becoming the second user ever to attain that distinction. You are not banned here, not yet. You are not yet eligible for a global ban, but you are one step away from it. So if that's what you want, you are almost there. --Abd (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Leucosticte @ Meta:RFH[edit]

Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Leucosticte – I'm letting you know about this discussion since you understand Leucosticte better than most people here. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I have commented there. Leucosticte needs clear boundaries. He is usually capable of following them if they are established.
The wikis tend to assume good user/bad user, and avoid establishing clear boundaries (with some exceptions). Leucosticte, as an example, did not revert war on Wikipedia. He is blocked on a certain wiki where he has admin privileges and could unblock himself.
He's complicated, and it is very easy to misunderstand him, to make quick conclusions about him and what he is, that are actually not who and what he is. He believes that meta is a place to debate Wikipedia decisions. Years ago, he introduced me to meta as an allegedly very free place. It's not. It is, however, normally tolerant. Meta is not quick to block, except when it is. I.e, meta can be unpredictable. What is safe one day may not be safe the next. --Abd (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Declining steward requests[edit]

It is not appropriate for a non steward to make decisions on requests for the stewards, and I trust that your mistake earlier today will not be repeated. I have struck out your "decision" and restored it to its previous state. Kind regards, Snowolf How can I help? 16:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me echo the concern that matters requiring administrative or steward action should be left to administrators or stewards, respectively. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Did I tell both of you to stay away from each-other? Abd, closing the section that he opened wasn't appropriate. TCNSV, you commenting here isn't appropriate. Seriously, the best way to settle this conflict is to just ignore each-other :S Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Ajraddatz. I have in the past closed discussions on administrative noticeboards, when it was obvious where they were going. It was only clerking, documenting what seemed obvious, for clarity and cleanup, briefly explaining policy. I wrote that anyone could reverse that close. Really, my close should have been converted to a comment, normally it has been allowed to comment there. However, I will now not do any clerking on that page, or commenting unless I have a critical interest. And from the result that ensued, I now have little confidence in global lock policy being followed. User accounts were globally locked without any significant cross-wiki disruption.
As to TCNSV, he had suggested the close. So I'm left wondering exactly what happened here. Are we now going to see more global locks that are essentially extensions of en.wikipedia decisions?
I don't know, however, that any actual harm was done in this case. The user was marginal and clueless and can simply start up new accounts, as a global lock does nothing to prevent that, and the user had little invested in the accounts.
Not really my problem. This is why I'm mostly staying away from meta. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


I'm curious about whether you appealed your ban. The ban was more than 2 years ago.--GZWDer (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Presumably you mean the Wikipedia community ban. No, I never appealed it. I gave a long answer, archived to history.
Do you think I should appeal? On what basis? For what purpose? --Abd (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking on my user talk page on Wikipedia, I found a reference to a discussion on Wikipedia Review of that ban discussion.[1] I wasn't formally notified, but I was obviously aware of it, I answered charges in detail.
I did not continue challenging Wikipedia directly. Basically, much better things to do. Looking around, I have found that apparently I have accidentally edited Wikipedia a couple of times over the last few years, by IP. I still occasionally am reading a Wikipedia page, see an obvious error, and click on edit. Old habits die hard, for old die-hards like me, I'm 70 in about a month. Usually, autologin stops me, and if I've been logged in recently, autoblock will be active, but twice or so... I could easily get around this, but ... going to so much trouble to make a small improvement to a project that doesn't want my help? Why? --Abd (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Use of {{Citation needed}} template[edit]

Abd, Sj, I'd very much appreciate your opinion(s) on this issue...

In Croatian Wikipedia, the instructions for using the "Citation needed" (Nedostaje izvor) template say that an editor who adds this template to an article must also post a clarification in the talk page that explains what is being challenged and why. Edit summary may or may not be accepted for this purpose. Insertions of this template without accompanying TP clarifications are often summarily reverted; I've found a paragraph where this has been done eight times over the course of six years. I've discussed the issue with two or three admins, and they are adamant that this is necessary because: 1) just "Citation needed" is not enough, because it is not clear which part of the sentence is being challenged, and 2) absent this, some editors would just indiscriminately slap the "Citation needed" left and right; they also said this is actually a regular occurrence.

To me, it's fairly obvious that this practice is hugely wrongheaded and counterproductive, as it effectively cripples what may well be the single most important Wikipedia template. I see it as a direct assault on en:WP:V.

Now - assuming I'm at least half right there - would you say that this is an issue for a Meta RFC? (On the condition, of course, that local process fails to rectify.) While I'm fully aware that Croatian Wikipedia is entitled to its own templates and guidelines, created by consensus, I still feel this crosses the line. Of course, I'm also aware that a change to this practice can't be enforced from the outside, but a clear position from Wikimedia people (ideally, even Jimbo - boy, I'm pretty sure he would have hated this) could at least influence local opinion. GregorB (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Last question first. No, this is not an issue for RfC on meta. And you are very unlikely to get an opinion from Jimbo on this on meta.
  • I looked at the template, and it asks that the posting of the template be reported on the Talk page. I looked at the long discussion by you on the attached Talk page. It looks like the tag request is often ignored, and the template is not removed, unless, perhaps, it was placed by an IP editor. There are practical realities involved here, my guess.
  • That discussion, like a lot of discussions, pretty much went nowhere. Reading Croation is not my strong point, I depend entirely on google translate, but it looked inconclusive to me. You changed the template, removing the bit about reporting the placement on Talk. You were reverted, then there was that long discussion. Okay, can you integrate what was expressed in the discussion, create language that is clearer and covers the various contingencies better, and make that edit again? If you just did the same thing, bad idea. Assume there are useful considerations in that commentary. Yes, I know, for some of it, that might be hard! But make that assumption anyway and see what you come up with.
  • Remember, most wikipedians are irritated by obsessive attention to detail in anything policy-related.
  • Researching the template issue could be difficult. I think you looked for what had templates placed, not places where the templates had been removed. That's difficult to research!
  • Basically, if you see removal of a citation needed template, when the intended application was clear and appropriate, revert it, and explain on the talk page. Don't let wikilawyers get away with mindless application of policies.
  • You ran into something I've often seen, people who have no concept of efficiency. It is one thing to see a piece of text needing some change, and to simply change it -- that's "wiki" -- and it is another to explain the change. I do understand where you are coming from. You were right, and so were they. But I'm not sure they explained their position well. It may be based on actual experience, the disruptive placement of tags. So how can their position be accomodated. It's obviously not policy that tags are removed if not discussed, right? It's just that someone, possibly someone pushing a POV, has done, because they can. If it was IP placing the tag, there is no watchlist notification. So they get away with it. How to reliably address this takes structure that most wikipedians don't want. You might need to create a WikiProject that would monitor all cn tags, i.e, identify all placements and the results, and flag removals without provision of sources. Watch out for doing this with any POV bias at all. I.e., don't! --Abd (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Your summary of events is quite correct. I did change the instruction initially, being bold and reasoning in favor of challenging the content (i.e. that it shouldn't require any more work than necessary); it seemed dead obvious. After the revert, the discussion was essentially unproductive and borderline nasty, so I just left it at that.
The arguments in favor of status quo were weak. But, thinking about it now, I feel that the underlying reason for favoring status quo here is general concern over proliferation of maintenance templates which would be difficult to remove given the local issues-to-editors ratio (150K articles, 1/3 of them completely unreferenced, with just several dozen active editors); these templates would simply "litter" or "deface" the articles in the meantime. (A case in point: recently I got asked why I added the "unreferenced" template to an article that was unreferenced. "Well, duh, because it is". Yet these actions are seen as "unconstructive".) I believe this is why the discussion did not go anywhere: I addressed the arguments, not the underlying motives, so there was a mutual lack of understanding.
Indeed, this is a matter of efficiency: it's "don't make things harder in 99% of the cases in order to make them easier in 1% of the cases". Still, consider this:
  • "Citation needed" requires a talk page clarification
  • "Unreferenced" is frowned upon, as described above
  • "POV" template, according to its instructions for use, shouldn't be added unless the editor in question has already tried to fix the problem (this is a bad idea for more reasons than one; removal of this requirement was rejected too)
That's more than just inefficiency - in the long run, it's road to ruin, as it virtually creates a perverse incentive. I've joined a newly-formed local WikiProject Neutrality, and can't help but notice that all this creates an editing culture that does not bode well for neutrality and verifiability in general.
I must say I really appreciate your time and effort in addressing this issue in depth and providing a very useful perspective. True, there is no easy way to fix everything, but something can be done - I guess that is the nature of the wiki. GregorB (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Steward requests/Global is not a place for policy debate[edit]

I have undone your last edit at Steward requests/Global, as that is a steward workspace, not a place for policy debate. If you wish to start a policy debate please use Requests for comment.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. I will. Don't you think that the comment should be moved to the Talk page if it is inappropriate there? I was presenting argument for considering unlock, pointing out how the locks are harmful to the projects, not just contrary to policy. The intention was not to "debate policy," but to apply it. There was contrary argument presented that neglects policy, completely, so I did point that out. Apparently, Billinghurst, it is not sufficient for some stewards to just say "No." They seem to need to argue further. -Abd (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

What the hell are you up to?[edit]

Do I see a similarity to Don Quixote here? You seem to be running around picking fault and analysing action of stewards for no bigger purpose than to either pick a fight, or to prove a contentious point? Or is it to just be troublesome? I am not seeing any particular benefits. What ultimately do you think that you will achieve by such an analysis? What do you think is likely to be the result of nitpicking analysis?  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted all that rubbish, any further attempt to provoke people and/or engaging in collecting informations about actions without consent will lead to an immediate and definitive block on this wiki. --M/ (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict with above) Billinghurst, my view is that we cannot design policy and assess performance without study of what is actually done. You have stated that review is welcome. That's what I'm doing. It is not "nitpicking," it is presentation and analysis of actual steward behavior. In a very few cases, I report behavior that might be questionable. In many more cases, I report behavior that may not be covered by policy, but where, easily, policy may need extension to cover the relevant situations.
Can you give me an example of the specific "fault picked"?
Review, yes. Forensic nitpicking, into areas that may identify real people is not. Your ill-informed and argued commentary is judgmental and sufficiently incorrect, and so, it is not a review, especially when viewed through something like a one-way, one-dimensional prism. Apart from peer review on each of the wikis, there is a formal review process called Ombudsman Commission, that oversight us all, and they produce a report of their activities. There a range of policies that cover these matters, some are covered by local communities, some by checkuser policy, others by overarching other operational policies primarily linked to from Stewards.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Billinghurst. Apparently this may need to go to the Ombudsman Commission, then. But one comment:
My study was obviously my study, and any individual's work may contain errors or be biased in some way. Before this would have been used in any actual process, there would have been very ample opportunity to review and correct it. That is why it was in user space. It was a draft study, not a complete one. Essentially, it seems, from today's action, it is forbidden for users to study actual steward behavior, unless, of course, the user *makes no mistakes as perceived by stewards,* or even by just one steward. The concept of the community being responsible for stewards is dead. Until now, there was no need for the kind of review that the Ombudsman Commission normally handles. I had found nothing that required examining checkuser data.
With the warning below, it has become excessively hazardous to even discuss this here, so, thanks for your consideration. --Abd (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Those were pages on a public wiki with commentary and assessments. One was drilling down about a person and seemingly carelessly towards identifying a person. Who knows whether you were right or wrong, irrespective it was just inappropriate and contrary to the practice of managing personal information that we undertake. The other pages had your commentary and assessments, with little equivocation, yet there were significant gaps in your areas of knowledge. You know that around here that such commentary can be misunderstood, or abused, and it is unfair that volunteers should have that exposure. We are human, will make occasional errors and will correct them as we can. Internal review processes exist, and communication takes place. To top it off, we have open channels to allow a communication as required.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I am only responding here, billinghurst, because of your continued comment. While there was some commentary and assessment, that was extra, not the core of the pages, which were mostly data. From the data, there is only one editor who could be identified, and that identification is very likely false. I'm in communication with the real person, however, was nothing there that is not from public logs.
There are certainly gaps in my knowledge, but this is the first time that I've seen the deletion of a study because it wasn't complete. Yes, I showed errors, and I showed the correction of errors, and in the introductory material I made it clear that anyone doing so many actions would doubtless make some mistakes. There are "internal review processes," but I can say that the community at large is not terribly confident in them. There were policy issues being examined: how do policy and actual practice match? Policy is supposed to be based on actual practice; that way people can know what to expect. When they routinely deviate, there is a problem with either the policy or the practice.
In any case, the situation is simple. It appears that I have not only been prevented from continuing this study here, I've been threatened with a block if I appeal the decision. I see this as chilling to the concept of community review of administrative behavior. Therefore my intention, if the situation continues, is to place the material elsewhere, where it cannot be deleted and suppressed by those who would hide it even from administrators.
Nobody likes to be bullied, billinghurst, it's a poor way to gain cooperation. With the material here, and given that I was frequently requesting review of what I was collecting, the correction of errors or any problems could be addressed. If there was improper "outing," revision deletion should have sufficed, and I'd have cooperated with that. When the material goes public, even I won't be able to recall it. So suit yourselves. There was, however, no privacy policy violation in my collection.
One more point: the Ombudsman Commission deals with possible checkuser improprieties. I have not encountered any in this study. I did find that checkuser is apparently being used in ways that the community may not expect, but that is not necessarily an impropriety, and it could be justified. --Abd (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
M7, I am accordingly, ceasing the study here, pending an appeal of the deletion. Thank you for making the matter completely clear. --Abd (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I will block you if you just "ask" for undeletion. Is that clear? --M/ (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, thanks for being clear. It is quite useful. --Abd (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Abd: I received your email. I no longer get involved in Meta affairs in this sort of way. ++Lar: t/c 01:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, [User:Lar|]. I was asking for advice, not involvement or other action, given your experience with both the steward community and the Ombudsman Commission. --Abd (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI, those locks in rapid succession were most likely done from the relatively new "MultiLock" interface (screenshot). Also, has only existed since 2013 (see mw:Extension:CentralAuth#.22SUL2.22_behavior). PiRSquared17 (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Also FYI: The content of the version of User:Abd/Antispam practices I just deleted was "Medieval or allow to enter loose older sources referring to lemons each rank quo the extraordinarily creditable, but juice-free citron." It was created by an unregistered user. Nothing relevant. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, hadn't noticed that creation/deletion.
Actually that could be *really bad* Google translation, I can imagine a meaning.
Now, as to Multilock, yes, that explains the speed, the steward collects the accounts to be locked in a list and then pops them at once.
I had also inferred that checkuser was being used, possibly on loginwiki. However, there is also edit filter data. The accounts being massively locked typically often show no edits, but they may have triggered an edit filter that blocked the edit, and reviewing the edit filters is tedious and, for non-admins, provides little or no information. --Abd (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


How about you, Abd? Ready to answer the call? Leucosticte (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No, thanks, not yet. If, however, you have a clear description of Inclupedia somewhere, I'd look at it. --Abd (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi Abd. Thanks for your lengthy and thoughtful reply. The story ends with some questions. Could you take into account the answer by Sj on strategy at Wikimania Board Q&A and what that implies according to about leading the community? Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Your note on my page[edit]

This is hardly a throw-away account. If I'd wanted that I would have not mentioned my TBAN over here. I don't deny that I struck out comments from | from the super-protection RFC. His comments were there to disparage and cause more heat (I.E Trolling) and they were struck out as such, which actually is allowable. However, I will observe 1RR , meaning, I made a bold change, you reverted and it will stay just that way unless you or someone else changes it, I will not. Free The Wiki (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the comments were not trolling. The user may be a bit naive about meta process, but was clearly sincere, and calling the user a troll is classic incivility, and obviously an error on top of that. This superprotection affair is extremely hot and tempers are flaring on all sides, and adding in gross incivility is intolerable. If you do that again, I don't just revert, I request sysop or steward action, I don't care if it's a throwaway account, and one never can tell, this is meta and sometimes stewards use checkuser. --Abd (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Letter petitioning WMF to reverse recent decitions[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation recently created a new feature, "superprotect" status. The purpose is to prevent pages from being edited by elected administrators -- but permitting WMF staff to edit them. It has been put to use in only one case: to protect the deployment of the Media Viewer software on German Wikipedia, in defiance of a clear decision of that community to disable the feature by default, unless users decide to enable it.

If you oppose these actions, please add your name to this letter. If you know non-Wikimedians who support our vision for the free sharing of knowledge, and would like to add their names to the list, please ask them to sign an identical version of the letter on

I'm notifying you because you participated in one of several relevant discussions. -Pete F (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I signed the petition because I support that move (removal of superprotection and allowing local choice re Media Viewer default status) not as a final decision, necessarily, but as returning to negotiation with respect and without demand. --Abd (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Superprotect letter update[edit]

Hi Abd,

Along with more hundreds of others, you recently signed Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer, which I wrote.

Today, we have 562 signatures here on Meta, and another 61 on, for a total of 623 signatures. Volunteers have fully translated it into 16 languages, and begun other translations. This far exceeds my most optimistic hopes about how many might sign the letter -- I would have been pleased to gain 200 siguatures -- but new signatures continue to come.

I believe this is a significant moment for Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Very rarely have I seen large numbers of people from multiple language and project communities speak with a unified voice. As I understand it, we are unified in a desire for the Wikimedia Foundation to respect -- in actions, in addition to words -- the will of the community who has built the Wikimedia projects for the benefit of all humanity. I strongly believe it is possible to innovate and improve our software tools, together with the Wikimedia Foundation. But substantial changes are necessary in order for us to work together smoothly and productively. I believe this letter identifies important actions that will strongly support those changes.

Have you been discussing these issues in your local community? If so, I think we would all appreciate an update (on the letter's talk page) about how those discussions have gone, and what people are saying. If not, please be bold and start a discussoin on your Village Pump, or in any other venue your project uses -- and then leave a summary of what kind of response you get on the letter's talk page.

Finally, what do you think is the right time, and the right way, to deliver this letter? We could set a date, or establish a threshold of signatures. I have some ideas, but am open to suggestions.

Thank you for your engagement on this issue, and please stay in touch. -Pete F (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Now you are debating at SRP[edit]

Please stop using the stewards' requests pages as an opportunity to debate. State your request, and move on. We do not need commentary on the future consequences of what enWV is going to do, how they are going to do it, where it is superfluous to the request. All completely irrelevant and contradictory to the purpose of the page. If you see that there is truly the need for any additional commentary, then take it to a user talk page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand, Billinghurst. That was not debate, that was thanks and appreciation. So please explain: you may request that I not make any comments on SRP after action has been taken, and I will honor that, assuming I remember it. (I probably will, but do remember I'm 70 years old and I occasionally forget things.) I will simply use the Thanks message, or a steward talk page. Is this advice particular to me, or is it generic? If generic, shouldn't it be in the instructions for using the page?
Ah! I had not looked at the SRP page yet I see that the user is arguing. I did not and would not respond to that, precisely because that page is not for debate, as you say. So, then, your warning is even, you warned both of us. Thanks. Very steward.
The rest of this is not at all obligatory to read. It's an explanation of what happened.
The matter has been resolved on Wikiversity. The mentor (a bureaucrat) had already asked the user to justify his record. He responded, and then the mentor terminated the probationary custodianship.[2] I deliberately requested removal "without prejudice," to make it clear that removal by a steward was not a judgment that the user was "wrong." He has again, here, raised accusations of "soapboxing pedophilia." The user he blocked earlier this year had not done that. He was taking a position, before, that has wide minority support in the WMF, for freedom of speech. Dave and I stopped that immediately, because we don't need conflict over this very hot issue, absent guidelines and consensus.
Then, the user asked me about a page he had just created on a suicide method. He is sitting on a large body of wiki material from SuicideWiki, now off-line, so he was testing acceptability. When he asked me, I immediately placed a speedy deletion tag on it, and Dave immediately deleted, both of us citing the absence of ethical guidelines. In spite of the matter being completely handled, the probationary custodian went ahead and blocked the user as "dangerous." He was not immediately unblocked, Dave followed procedure, questioning the block on the probationer's talk page, who considered that "harassment." Dave still did not unblock, because the blocked user had not requested it yet.
Wikiversity has a process for complaint against a custodian action. It's Custodian feedback. This is not a sysop removal page, it's a page where finding agreement is encouraged. Sysop removal is handled on a different page, would be site-messaged, etc. Because the block was questionable, and because whether or not the user requested unblock was irrelevant to that (the user was, in fact, disgusted to be unfairly blocked and was about to completely give up on Wikiversity, didn't want to request unblock), I filed a Feedback, and notified the probationer. He blocked me for that.
This was rapidly spinning out of control. Again, Dave did not immediately unblock. Comments from Dave on the probationer's talk page were already defined as "harassment." So he did not discuss this one as would be normal. Dave waited until I put up an unblock template, and then waited 24 hours to act, to see if the probationer would respond to the template. He did not. So he unblocked. When the alleged "dangerous user" requested unblock, giving assurances he would not create disruptive pages without consensus first, Dave unblocked him as well. The user reblocked both, now wheel-warring with no discussion. Dave unblocked again, and blocked the probationary custodian (which is contemplated procedure, but never actually tested). And then the probationer blocked him too, and reblocked me and the user.
So the probationer was now repeatedly wheel-warring with a permanent custodian. Probationary custodianship is granted to provide an opportunity for almost any Wikiversitan to take up the tools, but it was never intended to allow disruption of the work of permanent custodians, other than normal routine disagreement. Never wheel-warring, i.e., reversion of actions without discussion. It has long been assumed that a permanent custodian may immediately fix errors of probationers, that's one reason why we allow probationary custodianship. Ideally, it's the mentor who corrects errors, but in this case, we had a mentor who tends to sit back for long periods of time to see what happens, perhaps. Or he was too busy to really study what happens, or both.
So, now that there was wheel-warring, and an absence of other permanent custodians monitoring the situation, and it would take time and be highly disruptive to go through formal removal process, (and how was that supposed to happen if the person is blocking people who disagree with him?), I saw a need to bypass the usual formalities and come directly to meta. I knew and acknowledged that this was irregular. I did think that it might take more time, that a steward might say, "resolve this locally," but then, the ball being in play, a 'crat might show up. However, I've been emergency desysopped, twice! I knew that sometimes a 'crat wasn't required. In any case, the record had become obvious, that this user was "rogue." Which doesn't mean "wrong." It means not acting with community support.
Now, the steward who acted saw a problem, the self-unblock. That was definitely a problem in context, but would not be an automatic desysop, in my opinion, it would depend on context. If there is a permanent custodian who is the only effective maintainer of the wiki, self-unblock might be a necessity. I won't go into all the details, but I acted to point out that Dave had also unblocked himself, and that this, by itself, wasn't really the problem. Had the probationer unblocked himself and then refrained from wheel-warring with the permanent custodian, it would have been okay. (We may actually incorporate this in explicit policy, which may make future steward choices easier.)
Mostly, I covered this on Wikiversity and especially on the steward talk page there. My comments here on meta were quite brief:
  • [3] responded to a question from the steward.
  • [4] thanked the steward and did not attack the probationer.
Then the rest was argument ("debate") by the probationer, demonstrating cluelessness in many ways, even becoming incoherent.[5]
I do not recall ever arguing on meta against my emergency desysops, because, as we all know or should know, the remedy is local if an error is made, because resysopping can be done at any time by a 'crat.
The user repeated, here, his claim that he had only blocked email. In fact, he'd made this erroneous statement many times on Wikiversity, and I'd pointed out the error. So he'd passed up at least three opportunities to see the problem.
Blocking email without blocking the user was also clueless, even if had been possible. The user has email access everywhere, but has no history of abusing it. His email access under that account on Wikipedia is blocked, but likely because that account was a returning banned user, the earlier account (abandoned) still has unblocked email. There is actually no way to prevent email, with a sophisticated user.
Now, the allegedly dangerous user is arguing that we should host the material on suicide, and points to Wikipedia's decision to host such things. Dave started a discussion on Talk:Suicide, which is where the user is arguing. This is totally proper. Discussion whether or not to host specific materials on suicide methods is not harmful, if the discussion remains civil, as it has. At this point, my strong sense, we will not host the material. The user could appeal the deletion, and has not chosen to do so. None of that (i.e., discussion) creates danger.
Essentially, Wikiversity is for learning-by-doing, and I've been training this user to collaborate with a community instead of just barging ahead with what will offend. He is doing it, he agreed to it, and if he makes another mistake, we'll warn him and fix it.
We will have broader resources on suicide than we now have, but subject to ethical guidelines. We can actually do much better than Wikipedia, because we can frame this within a resource that is designed to discourage impulsive suicide. Wikipedia has difficulty doing these things. It's not the function of an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia does host material on suicide and suicide methods, and appears to have rejected the arguments advanced by the former probationer. That Wikipedia hosts material is one of the arguments being advanced. I've rejected that, because we can do better, from all points of view. We can create ethical guidelines that protect, while also setting up the possibility of deep learning. We will likely point to Wikipedia for anything controversial, unless the Wikiversity community decides to host more specific material. What we will create, otherwise, will still be a resource that facilitates learning, that's what we can do really well, and the fellow who was blocked tends to be highly informed on the topics he takes an interest in. So we harness that, while acting to make sure that neutrality is maintained and nobody is harmed. --Abd (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The purges have began[edit] – The WMF just banned Leucosticte, Poetlister, and Russavia. Troubling times are ahead. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Poetlister was already banned. Leucosticte might as well have carried around a big sign saying "Ban me." However, Russavia? Looks to me like someone just dumped the Recent Changes log for Commons, immediately after an IP edited that was probably Russavia, from the location. That takes developer access, and it only makes sense if they are trying to keep this from being visible. Russavia was a very active Commons user, and still an administrator. The same WMF account removed admin access for Russavia today. So they removed a Commons administrator without notifying the community.
Actually, I'm sure now, they have repeated dumped Recent Changes, and it's an attempt to suppress notice by the Commons community. This time the oldest edit in Recent Changes was a reversion of an IP sock, apparently Russavia.
Have they gone mad? Shutting down Recent Changes in order to hide some edits? What are they thinking? It won't work. They would have to use revision deletion. And all that they are hiding is a link, on Commons User talk for Russavia, to a copy of the WMF letter to Russavia, apparently he put it up elsewhere so it could be seen. The reason given for the action in that email copy was
"We are taking this action based upon because of a history of sockpuppetry and legal concerns as well as other violations of our Terms of Use.
Russavia's real name appears in the email, but I assume that it was put up by Russavia, he's the only one who would have that email. Beaudette, the sender, has refused comment.
The problem for me is that I have generally considered the WMF outside of Wikipedia to be safe, with a few exceptions, easily avoided. Now that a user appears to have been globally banned based on Wikipedia actions, nothing is secure. There is no protection in policy if policy is disregarded. Privacy in global bans makes sense when the claims are based on, say, "advocacy of inappropriate relationships with children," i.e., child protection policy, but makes no sense when the claim is disruptive editing on Wikipedia or "socking."
Such drama. It's the cover-up, stupid! --Abd (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Policy talk pages are not for ill-informed commentary[edit]

A policy talk page is not the place to educate about OPs, and a user's (ab|mis)use of OPs, nor should we need to do so. Your words there are ill-informed and demonstrate that you express an opinion unsupported by knowledge, with your words there simply demonstrating a cluelessness of the subject. At this point all I hear is your lips flapping as you continue to criticise, yet demonstrate that you are ill-informed about what your lips are flapping. Please learn to practice some restraint. This is not the first time that this has been asked of you.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I see from your comment here and what you have done or supported in the past, that community supervision and participation in wiki governance is not welcome, at least not by me, and possibly dangerous. Accordingly, unless the community decides to support this, I'm withdrawing from general participation here, unless you are explicit that it's welcome. I still intend to participate in RfCs (or to initiate them), votes, and requests of personal relevance. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

can I[edit]

ask you two questions? ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You can. You have one more.

Seriously, you may ask questions on or off-wiki, your choice. --Abd (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


I noticed that you created Requests_for_comment/Support_collaboration_on_Pashto_Wikipedia. I just wanted to let you know that much of the debate is now occurring at pswiki itself: ps:Project_talk:Policies. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The RfC is really a process page for admin requests, just in case something cannot be handled locally. If it is not needed, no harm. Thanks for the notice and your support. I don't see everything!
One of the desysopped users complained that now "nobody can edit the main page." That policy page would not be the place to request a change like that, an edit under protection. The RfC requests page here will work, I can make that happen with high reliability and minimum disruption. And it might demonstrate some possibilities, frosting on the cake.
As well, facilitated discussion can be handled there, if users want some global support, advice, comment, etc. We'll see how it's used. I'll look at that pswiki page. --Abd (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, can you please tell them to play nice with each other, instead of trying to ban each other? ps:Project:Vote_for_Block_of_Seendgay. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict with above) Probably. Maybe. It may help that I'm shaykhun kabiyr. Ah, "old man." We'll see. What I have set up will reward cooperation, and continued fighting will get them nowhere. You've seen a little of what I can do. It does work, sometimes, or at least it separates the sheep from the goats. Or wolves. --Abd (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Gad. This is a juvenile concept of how to improve the world. Get rid of the bad people. Now, why didn't we think of that? So simple. Easy, eh? Well, they have guns. Okay, so, to continue our plan, get bigger guns! Right? Maybe it will work this time! --Abd (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

These users appear to not have much wiki experience. They want to "ban" a user for violating policy, but they don't have policies yet, they are so busy trying to ban users for violating policies that don't exist. Get a policy, then warn, then short-block if needed to enforce policy, then escalate blocks if needed, and then indef block, and a "ban" is a highly disruptive process that is only to be used if truly necessary. Meanwhile, the user they want to ban is being grossly uncivil. That's what happens when you yank the lid off of a pressure cooker. I was tempted to go to a steward, but decided to keep my mediator hat on. I'm not going to originate admin action requests, unless someone is trashing that RfC space. I did warn the user, here, though. I'd rather not see him blocked or banned.

We really need to establish this as a community understanding. Warnings are a courtesy, if motivated by preserving order and keeping the user from immolating himself. We need to get rid of the idea that a short block is a major black mark. People get passionate and say stupid stuff and an experienced chairperson simply asks them to sit down and shut up, and, if they don't, arranges their removal from the room until they cool down. This is basic democratic process, it's nothing mysterious. Except to Wikimedians, apparently, who become incensed over what really should be no big deal. --Abd (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Abd Now this is very funny , when you say respect the elders , if it is the case you may not know how old Iam and what is an ethic to follow . I agree with you that ethic says we should always be moral and respect elders . then I ask you why don't you let our Afghans to follow the ethic and moral to implement the law and regulations based on neutrality and clearly Justice? This what you said respecting the elders is something in contradicts to your actions , you by yourself do not respect others who maybe elders than you who knows about who? Iam asking you the last time that block SeendGay and its friends like Usman Shah who are coming to the pashto wikipedia and spreading the vulgarity , wrong literary use, completely ganglionic speech because of stubborn intentions, pasting completely pornographic pictures, naked organs then explaining in a sexual oriented language , he also writes disrespectful sentences because of the freedom of the extreme speech given to him and alike him by the Stewards groups in the talking pages. these are lots of the reasons to know about the vandalism , traitor or what ever you will call alike person. I think he is totaly mental ill. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Afghanwrites (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2015‎.

First of all, sign your posts. You are correct that I don't know how old you are, but if you are even close to my age, shame on you. You are not demonstrating maturity. I'm 70, and you? Now, sit down and we can talk. Tea? --Abd (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
And don't ping someone on their own talk page, it's totally unnecessary, at best, and I think it can create duplicate notices.
I have warned SeendGay. I have seen the ban request on You have priorities reversed.
First establish policy. SeendGay is being uncivil in the policy discussion, and if that continues after warning, he will be blocked. You don't have to demand it.
You may request attention to a situation on in the RfC I started here, but please understand that response is not going to be quick unless a steward or global sysop happens to see it. There are ways to get their attention, but the problem is that the situation was overcontrolled in the past. When the overcontrol is released, a young hot-head may take advantage of new freedom and may go way too far. If you make reasonable requests, however, they will be granted. Banning someone is not a reasonable request. Warning and short-blocking may be.
As to vulgar speech, and, say, sexually-explicit content, there is no policy on about that, that I've seen. Banning someone for violating a policy that does not exist is universally recognized as unfair. Create the policy. Then, if it is violated, warn. Anyone may warn, not just administrators. I am not an administrator, but I know how to get their attention. What I ask for is usually granted. Not always, just usually. I don't ask for what they are not likely to grant. So if a warning is violated, *then* blocks become appropriate. People who are involved and upset do not issue good warnings. A teenager, especially, will spit in your face, if you don't respect them. It's normal human behavior, when the lid is off, i.e., when social control is gone.
I've seen a little effort on to encourage SeendGay to make positive contributions, which is useful. What he has written, though, is so offensive that I'm not terribly hopeful for his future, but he may turn around, and it is worth the effort, and it's worth a bit of patience. --Abd (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed offensive words[edit]

Removed offensive words with strike as you said please see: [6] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seendgay (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2015‎

Well, that's a start, thanks.

"Fuck Jinnah" is also offensive, that would never be allowed in a signature on the English Wikipedia. --Abd (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Further help needed[edit]

He has apologised but we need serious reform to allow freedom on ps-wiki PashtoLover (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

What you need on ps-wiki is really up to you. My strong suggestion is that you create a priority of finding community consensus. It almost doesn't matter what it is about, because consensus builds consensus.

If you don't have clear policies, with broad agreement on them, but you go ahead and create sysops, with block and delete tools, what guidance will they follow? Usually: their own. Don't be surprised if this is not seen as freedom by some in the community. You may be able to find people who are dedicated to serving community consensus, and who will keep their own opinions out of it, as far as the use of admin tools is concerned. If these are trusted to have good sense and to respect what the community wants (and to help the community come to agreement), then, it's okay to elect them and ask stewards for right. But don't start there. Start with policy.

Ask the advice of others with broad wiki experience. The idea of majority vote for sysops is okay if you can make it easy to remove sysops! In fact, deciding on how to remove them may be more important than deciding how to create them! You can have a wiki without sysops, at least for a while. You have global sysops and stewards who will assist you. But if you have sysops, and you can't remove them, you are quite stuck if there is a problem with them.

Notice: Khangul seems to have thought that the other sysop was a problem. He didn't know how to handle that. So he indef blocked. That is what led to the removal of rights. Lack of process for removing sysops. And, of course, it also applied to him. The problem was not Khangul. The problem was lack of a solid, functioning community consensus.

Khangul may have years of being accustomed to running the wiki. Be patient with him, it may take him some time to adjust. Afghanwriter just said he was abandoning the wiki. That kind of reaction often comes up when there are changes. Give him time, he might already have decided differently, or might decide so next year ....

The wiki concept of "consensus" is not mere majority vote. My own opinion is that majority vote is very useful, but it's not enough, if a minority is not adequately represented or considered. Hence people who want a strong society seek broader agreement than mere majority. Majority is fine for making small decisions, especially when they are not seen as truly important. Majority rule is better than minority rule, but not as powerful as consensus. "Consensus," ideally, means that *everyone agrees.* However, that is not always attainable. It should remain a goal worth working for.

In ordinary democratic process, it takes a supermajority to decide that a proposal is ready for vote. That is, if more than one-third of the assembly thinks that discussion should continue, it continues. Wikis don't use ordinary democratic process, usually. However, that is where the centuries of experience lie. We should learn from it.

A basic understanding: whatever the Pashto community agrees upon, or at least most agree, will happen. Stewards will implement it. There is an exception: if stewards think that a Pashto proposal violates basic WikiMedia Foundation principles, they may refuse. Billinghurst has said that the Pashto project is a *language project*, not an *ethnic community project.* That's his opinion, but it may also reflect broad opinion among the stewards.

Much of the discussion I've seen from Pashto users is ethnically based, Afghan-nationalist or Afghan partisan. My own opinion is that it is not the Afghan encyclopedia, as Wikipedia is not the American encyclopedia or the British encyclopedia. However, it's obvious that many Pashto readers will be highly interested in Afghanistan and Afghan issues! So the community will need to work this out.

Wikis *can* create standards for content, such as "vulgarity" or how sexually explicit topics are handled. Normally, local wikis have high freedom to make their own policies. That can include making policies that restrict local freedom! --Abd (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

A complaint about a user[edit]

RE: Requests_for_comment/Support_collaboration_on_Pashto_Wikipedia/Requests[edit]

Alright, I understand now. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. This could actually be spectacular, you get that, right?
I suggested strong clerking long ago for enwiki ArbCom. They thought I was crazy. "We don't do things that way." So they get those train wrecks.
I used to do this in my user space. Case: users fighting with each other, heading for one or both being blocked. Invite them to work it out on a page in my user space, which, of course, by tradition, I can quasi-admin. It was amazing how well it worked.
Users at each other's throats started supporting each other. A professor and Randy from Boise! Consider it: the professor is an expert, and Randy is the average Joe. For whom is the encyclopedia written? For professors? No, for Randy from Boise! So the job of the professor is to provide sources and help Randy understand them, and the job of Randy is to represent the users, so that the article will effectively communicate to ordinary readers. When the professor does his job well, Randy understands. When Randy does his job well, the professor's writing becomes intelligible and effective.
Experts often want the articles to be "correct." Great. However, correct and unintelligible to ordinary readers -- as distinct from experts -- is not very useful. I could point to examples from enwiki history, but, in general, I don't want to name names.
Hah! When I was banned, the usual suspect MfD'd all those user pages as my ravings. Ah, those were the days! Some of the pages were saved, I don't think that professor/Randy mediation was.
Are we having fun yet, Michael? --Abd (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

What are you doing?[edit]

There is no clerk system at meta at this point of time, especially not a self-appointed system. There exists admins for administrative decisions. When the local or global community wants one it will come from a respective consensus discussion.

RFCs exist for the purpose of discussion/comment not control or administration.

Wherever possible, community discussions belong at the community at the heart of the discussion, not meta.

Where small communities need external administrative assistance then it belongs at Steward requests/Miscellaneous until community/stewards/GS decide otherwise.

If you think that you have the skills, suitability and support to undertake the role of GS or steward, then put yourself forward.

Your approach - clumsy, self-informed, restricted view, self-held - is between not helpful and deeply problematic. I would advise you to keep out of the way. If you continue to contribute in a manner that is problematic then expect to see a discussion with your name on it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Billinghurst. I have committed to clerking that RfC page, to support that community and culture -- which I know something about -- and will do so as long as permitted.
Would you mind pointing to a specific problematic contribution? I'd appreciate it.
If I am warned to stop, by an admin or steward, I will. I do not read the above as such a warning, it was not explicit. I read it as a highly judgmental criticism. I am not "in the way." If so, how? What am I preventing?
Traditionally, users were free to experiment with process. Nobody is forced to participate. If they are disruptive, there is procedure for handling it.
The page you mention (Miscellaneous) is for requests, and it is obviously not used for discussion or community comment, and my experience has been that community comment is often unwelcome on steward request pages.
If warned to stop, I would expect to be able to place a notice withdrawing my volunteer work on that RfC.
I am not looking for tools, it would be like a facilitator in a court carrying a gun. That's not what we do. You have those tools, and apparently you dislike any interference, i.e, community advice or participation. That's unfortunate. I understood the WMF structure differently than that. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: The section below indicates that progress is being made. Please don't discourage others from helping out. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleting Request and Info[edit]

  • PashtoLover used my internet and computer [we are members a community the Pashto society.] He now uses the official PC at are office, I do not.
  • My IP and Username are still blocked:
  • I still possess the alternative username Adjutor102. I have not used it for anything other than to evade block on Pashto Wikipedia.
  • Now I am working on wikitionary to advance Pashto independently from the Pashto society due to personal differences with the head. Hence, I wish to take back my request

Adjutor101 (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The shared access at the office explains the "related" assessment. I would think that, given that PashtoLover was unblocked, your account could also be unblocked, and, as well, the IP. You could ask the steward for that.
You added a speedy deletion tag to the subpage. That contains comments from others, it should not be deleted. However, I have collapsed the content, and moved the request itself to a closed status.
As you can see above, I'm encountering some opposition for my work from a steward. If the community does not show support for that work, it's useless. Meanwhile, you could still volunteer as a Translator on the Translator subpage. You might then be asked to look at and translate Pashto, for the rest of us. We need multiple translators, if possible, because it's possible someone would accuse a translator of bias.
This is innovative process here. I've done this before, elsewhere, but stewards don't know that, and some seem to prefer to be in charge, having been elected to hold the tools they do. That is a bit like installing the police as a court of judgment. Sometimes, ad hoc, yes, that's a police function, but not when there is a serious dispute, they only keep order in a civil society.
I have been gratified to see the various Pashto users being relatively polite on the RfC page, and focusing mostly on the issues. It means to me that the Pashto community does have the ability to discuss and is likely to find consensus, given time and space and support. --Abd (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Iam still working in Pashto wikipedia despite unfair behaviour of Urdu teams[edit]

By the way sir Iam just an ordinary member of the pashto wikipedia and has no bad intention rather than correcting some urdu speakers like عثما شا and عثمان منصور انصاري who commit injustices just because to get approach the adminship. Iam totally against the ego and prejudice of anyone and therefore I respect the humanity as always. I just criticised عثما شاه on his submition to the Urdu works in pashto wikipedia and عثمان منصور انصاري is supporting his wrong doing as always but still I have not argued with him after I was released of blockage. I am working constantly on articles and I do not need any adminship or have no interest of bad words neither did I use anything to anyone, just mentioned that please try to correct the urdu or panjabi mistakes in the pashto context which is not suitable with the article. hope the stewards make them understand to work clean and neat in its pashto alphabets for the Afghan users and do not express their grudges collaboratively against me and pretending me as Khangul , iam not Khangul . with kind regards --Afghanwrites (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

What has been brought up has nothing to do with what you write above. You appear to have voted twice in a bureaucrat election.
As to Khangul, do you understand why the question comes up that you are "related" to Khangul, such that some claim you are the same user? I don't think you are the same user, but, please, tell me why people might think so. --Abd (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Dear ABD! sorry to interfere here, but its so sorry that i have found a huge contradictorily comments of respected Afghanwrites!

plz do not say that "no bad intention rather than correcting some urdu speakers like عثما شا and عثمان منصور انصار" then you says you ask for help, but we dont respond you "The people except Khangul no one trys to help me , I have asked for help but no one helped me in so long period , therefor I got angry on usman khan and usman mansour ansari that they do not help others but try to nominate themselves as Admin. " first you clain that you are a master to correct other wikipedians, then you ask the students of yours to help you, but unfortunately the did not!? though if you found any mistakes in my work either in Usman Khan's contribution, jsut point it to me, InSah Allah we will bring reform in our work. ask as if you could solve your problem, but i think it would be more enought to for our Ps wiki users to blame eachother anymore! plz return to wiki and instead blaming eachother, just start your contributions... if you pretend that im urdu speaker or i have come from Urdu wiki, fist of all, its not a sin to come from another sister wiki. we are afghans and we have the right to move in into ur or Farsi wikis, coz we most of the time we have the same culture, religion or same language. second: just go and count my contribution! you wond fine more that 10 edits in urdu wiki, same in farsi maybe abut 30 edits.

third: im not a native speaker of Baluchi language, but i do participate and help the baluchi incubator Project. so kindly i request you not to blame me anymore here in meta or there in pashto wiki. just do return and contribute as we and others do in ps wiki.

kind regards to all specially to Afghanwrites (Khangul bor) :)--عثمان منصور انصاري (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice[edit]

Abd thank you for your advice , Iam fully prepared to follow the rules but I have less information regarding the technical side of wikipedia. The people except Khangul no one trys to help me , I have asked for help but no one helped me in so long period , therefor I got angry on usman khan and usman mansour ansari that they do not help others but try to nominate themselves as Admin. there are other things as well but its not important now to reveal. anyway if I do sometimes mistakes hope to be mentioned before the complaint happens and block placed. I thank you for good evaluation and by this I hope you re-choose Khangul on his adminship and let him work as always , he never complaint and you can check his all directory he has never abused anyone yet , he just got angry on a new user who knew nothing but didnt listen to Khangul's friendly advice as well . then Usman Mansour took use of that opportunity. by the way you know better the situation , have good time and peace on earth is my voice.--Afghanwrites (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome, Afghanwrites. Thank you for your polite response.
It's not up to me about Khangul. I'm not a steward, and my role here is as an ordinary but experienced Wikimedian, to help users find agreement.
You will not agree on everything, but it's important that you start to agree on some things; if not, the Pashto wiki will be heavily damaged. I do think that Khangul made some mistakes, and, in fact, that's obvious. If not for a mistake, the admins on would not have been relieved of responsibility. That decision did not mean that Khangul was wrong, just that he made a mistake, his indef block of Uthman Mansur Ansari, who was another administrator. That's in the past. The future will not be found in the past. It will be found in possibilities that are developed now and on-going. Again, thanks.
So, advice: Don't edit while you are angry. Wait. Wikis grow gradually, and mistakes can be fixed, but they are best fixed by people who are calm, not upset. If you have made angry statements, blank them if nobody has responded, or strike them if there has been a response. It's even better if you apologize, if you can do so sincerely.
This is not about "truth." It is possible to be uncivil with truth. Suppose you have done something in the past that looks bad, suppose you actually did it. Bringing that up without a necessity is uncivil. al-a^maalu bi n-niyyah. Actions are (judged) by intention. If the intention is blame and humiliation, fitna, rather than creating peace and harmony and orderly society, it's uncivil.
And when we are angry, this is what we often do!
If you don't know how to use "strikeout", ask. You may ask me, or you may ask any experienced user. In fact, asking people you have disagreed with for help is one way to start cooperation. If they reject it, that's their problem, don't get upset, stay polite, and just ask someone else. fiy aymanullah. --Abd (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Afghanwrites: Afghanwrites! I have told you and many other users on PsWp that If you need help you can ask me anytime. And Don't say that "No one help me". Once Again I am telling you that If you need any help you can ask me any time. Inshallah I will help you --UsmanKhan (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, UsmanKhan. If someone disagrees with me, I will still help them to express themselves, because it is important that we all be able to communicate, or else we trip each other up.
It is obvious that if you have two groups of users working together, each putting in 100% effort, their work is efficient, it's 100% overall. If they are completely fighting with each other, they might be trying harder -- because they get angry -- but the result is 100% - 100%, or zero.
This is why we seek consensus, because it is efficient. Besides being nicer. You can have that zero result even from "majority rule," if the minority is sufficiently upset and not small. Even a small minority can make a big problem, so it's worth taking some time to try to find wide agreement if possible. It is often possible, it simply takes some patience.
Sometimes people won't agree no matter what. If one side says the sky is blue, the other side will say, no, wrong, it's black. So it doesn't always work. But usually it does. ma^a salaamaa--Abd (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

An Urdu Wikipedian Obaid Raza blocked me without warning me and explaination[edit]

Dear Stewards .. Since the UrduWikipedians like Usman Khan (عثمان خان) , Obaid Raza , SeendGay , عثمان انصاري participated in the pashto wikipedia in order to deteriorate the progress of Pashto wikipedia , I then had to enter the Urdu page and inform them of their wrong doings . but as there are many people supporting their wrong doings and covering the issue for eachothers , they didnt listen to me and then they blocked me for ever without any information from Urdu Wikipedia . I understand urdu language better and have the degree in it and whenever I corrected any article they reverted it but i didnt complain, then they decided to through me out of urdu page so they blocked me . there are three people who are mostly involved they are Usman khan (عثمان خان) , Obaid Raza , Irfan . here is the result you can see. (blocked without warning ) I want you to unblock me so that I can also solve some of the wrongdoings and edit the urdu articles about the Afghan personalities. most of them have written the issues which relates to the personal interests especialy about the well-known personalities. please help here and follow them. kind regards --Afghanwrites (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Afghanwrites, I'm not a steward or global sysop. I took a brief look at urdu Wikipedia and your record there. Yes, you were blocked without warning, but you used your user page as a campaign against certain users, it's simply not surpising that you would be blocked. Stewards are not going to interfere in the Urdu project. If you want to contribute there, you will have to find a way to work with that community.
You were accused of using more than one account. I know that there was checkuser evidence connecting you with Khangul, i.e., you could be using the same internet access. I don't think you are Khangul. However, that's a possible difficulty. Khangul is not blocked on (he was just blocked for two hours, a few days ago. Not a big issue.) Have you used more than one account on Or are you sharing a computer with someone with an account there? Was this other person warned or blocked?
So what are these about? [7] about? [8] --Abd (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Latest misinformation from Englisc[edit]

Englisc is lying about how the conflict between me and him started. I wasn't motivated by my ban from RationalWiki. I defended Rome Viharo on a now defunct forum ( and Oliver attacked me in response. I then decided to delete the Encyclopedia Dramatica article Englisc had made on Rome Viharo. Englisc (under the username "Mark of Kri") then tried to trick people into believing that I accepted a bride. Afterwards, I restored and expanded an old ED article that Mikemikev and some of Englisc's EgyptSearch opponents had created on Englisc. When Englisc began attacking me, it become evident that Englisc's history as a liar and impersonator needed to be exposed, for the benefit of Englisc's victims.

Is anyone going to do something about Englisc? I'm unable to directly refute his falsehoods due to my block. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Michael, there are several of us doing something about Englisc and that sock drawer. Right now, you are blocked until later today. Simply not a big deal. The sock family is routinely lying, but the lies actually help create a web, that makes them quite visible. Trust reality and, I know it's crazy, trust the community! Back off. You upset that admin, who didn't understand what was happening, and who simply reacted. His reactions may lead to community review of his behavior, it's certainly not the first time, but that is not an emergency. Nor is a single block of a single user an emergency, not when the user is someone with your experience. If you want power, Michael, develop gravitas, patience, and detachment. It will help you everywhere in your life, and your life is more important than these wikis.
There will be places where you can help. meatball:DefendEachOther. Ancient wisdom! It's an old lesson will worth considering and practicing.
Stick around, but also, until it is very clear what you are doing and you have support -- and, in fact, you are simply and cogently and coherently supporting someone else, STFU. --Abd (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I hope you enjoyed the bride. They can be nice! Meanwhile, it was not necessary to point out that Englisc was lying, because Lying Liars Lie, this was completely obvious. If they say the earth is turning, watch some shadows to make sure. Defending others, great. Defending yourself, this is a difficult reality for some to accept, but *it looks bad.* Read that meatball essay. I appreciate the history. I'm most interesting in reasonably conclusive evidence tying the recent disruption back to the oldest accounts. I don't know if I'll pursue this, if they continue creating socks, I may. They very much want me to stop. The way to keep me going is to continue the behavior. Otherwise I w:WP:DGAF. The world is full of injustice, "someone is wrong on the internet." I pick issues that will actually make a difference. --Abd (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Lies, deception, and disruption[edit]

My talk page here and on Wikiversity has been attacked by the user I exposed, as documented at User:Abd/LTA/Anglo Pyramidologist. That is the name used on Wikipedia for the puppet master for a sock farm that is at least 200 accounts, and growing. This user raises claims about my activities that are false, but responding to those simply encourages more disruption, so for the most part, all I am doing when attacked is asking for admin assistance in addressing what are the edits of a blocked and globally locked user, who has impersonated and attacked many users, and this user has made me a target only because I defending the attacks, which were not just on the user but on the entire Wikiversity process, and, before that, on Wikipedia neutrality. There has been retaliation outside of the WMF. So far, I have not been real-life harassed, but this user has harassed others in real life, all the while as he accuses others of harassment. The same user, however, created an article on me on RationalWiki, and I have clear technical evidence of that socking.

I will respond to registered autoconfirmed users who are not attack SPAs, who might have questions about some of this LTA's claims.

I am not otherwise responding to these attacks, other than documenting them, and I do that because every incident provides more information. This user purports to be defending skeptics, but, in fact, in one case today, provided account information to me that, were I wanting to harass that person, would be valuable. I very much doubt that those he pretends to be defending approve of what he's doing, if they know.

There is a farrago of information about this user, much provided by him from various socks, but he lies so frequently that none of it is reliable. It has occurred that one of his socks has attacked another. This is a highly disruptive set of accounts, blocked under many names on more than one wiki. I have asked for my talk page to be semiprotected to avoid disruption, as it was before. The LTA study is semiprotected, and so is the Talk page attached. If any user (including the real person behind all or some of these socks) wants to communicate with me, my email is open here, on Wikiversity, and on Wikipedia, and the user knows how to create accounts, even beyond IP blocks. (And the user, if he has a legitimate complaint, can always ask another user to intervene.) If there are errors in those studies, and I'm sure there are a few, they are massive, I will investigate them and fix them as appropriate. In some cases, I may remove personal information, if present, on request, even if true, but there might be conditions on that. Any admin may hide inappropriate revelation of personal information, if that is accidentally done, but, of course, admins know that. This user has, by the way, copied so-called "outing" documents of mine to so that they cannot be hidden. He only uses claims of outing to attack those who defend themselves and others.

The study is in my user space for now, but an edited version, I plan, will be moved to meta mainspace under LTA studies. Recognizing the behavior of this puppet master could be of benefit to the wikis. Wikipedia has often not seen what was happening right in front of its face, and much damage has been done -- long before I became involved.

The basic pattern is SPAs created to attack, and now, IPs doing it. What is starting to happen, which is progress, is that some admins are refusing to follow up on requests from such SPAs, because it is clear that they are not there to improve the project, but only to attack enemies, making the project a battleground. See these edits, which lay it out. and The second edit shows that the first edit was a lie. The person was not stopping, simply creating more disruption by moving from one open proxy to another. The first edit was made as the user knew that the IP was going to be blocked, that's all. The .9 IP started editing the same minute as the .10 IP was blocked.

It is not necessary for those not interested to follow all this. It's enormously complex, a tissue of lies and libel and then outraged targets responding as normal human beings -- and often getting blocked for that, for many years. Disentangling it, becoming clear on what has actually happened, has taken me some months of research, many hours. I do not expect any WMF user to follow this unless they have a specific interest. Where I make admin requests, my goal is to keep them simple and clear. As an example, it is not necessary to understand the LTA to see that there is edit warring on this talk page and elsewhere, and to act to prevent it. It is not necessary to understand the LTA to block an open proxy. So far, stewards and meta administration have been excellent, if sometimes a bit slow. That's okay. A page being vandalized or trolled for a day or two is not a big problem. --Abd (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


Hi, is it actually legitimate for someone to remove a much earlier earlier vote only to become one of the most recent voters? That guy did this and came up with a comment.[9] --Avoided (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's iffy. If there was no reply to the earlier comment, it is not clearly disruptive. I'll say that this is the least of your worries. Let that one go. --Abd (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)