User talk:Abd/Archive

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

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to Meta![edit]

أهلا Abd ، ومرحبا بك في ويكيميديا ميتا ويكي! يعمل هذا الموقع على تنسيق ومناقشة كل مشاريع ويكيميديا. ربما سيكون مفيدا لك مطالعة صفحة السياسات هنا. إذا كنت مهتما بأمور الترجمة، راجع ميتا:بابلون. يمكنك أيضا ترك ملاحظة في ميتا:بابل (من فضلك راجع أولا التعليمات هناك قبل ترك الملاحظة). إذا أردت الاستفسار عن شئ ، لا تتردد في سؤالي في صفحة نقاشي. تمتع بالتحرير هنا!

Hola Abd! Benvingut a la Meta-Wiki de la Fundació Wikimedia! Aquest lloc està fet per a coordinar i discutir tots els projectes de la Fundació Wikimedia. Potser us serà útil llegir la nostra pàgina de polítiques (en anglès). Si us interessen les traduccions, visiteu Meta:Babylon. També podeu deixar un missatge a Meta:Babel o al Meta:Metapub (però abans de fer-ho, llegiu les instruccions situades al principi de la pàgina). No dubteu en preguntar si teniu qualsevol dubte. Si cal ho podeu fer en la meva pàgina de discussió. Bona sort!

Vítejte, uživateli Abd, a vítejte na Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Tento server je určen pro spolupráci a diskusím ke všem projektům nadace Wikimedia. Možná si budete chtít přečíst naše pravidla. Pokud chcete spolupracovat na překladech, navštivte Meta:Babylon. Také můžete přidat příspěvek na Meta:Babel či Meta:Metapub (nejdříve si přečtěte pokyny na začátku těchto stránek). V případě potřeby se neváhejte zeptat se na mé diskusní stránce. Hodně štěstí!

Hallo Abd, und Willkommen bei Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Diese Webseite dient der Koordination und Diskussion aller Wikimedia-Projekte. Vielleicht findest Du es nützlich, unsere Regelseite zu lesen. Sofern Du daran interessiert bist etwas zu übersetzen, besuche Meta:Babylon. Du kannst auch eine Notiz auf Meta:Babel oder Meta:Metapub hinterlassen (bitte lies die Anleitung am Anfang der Seiten, bevor Du etwas schreibst). Wenn Du möchtest, kannst Du mir auch auf meiner Diskussionseite Fragen stellen. Fröhliches Bearbeiten wünscht

ވިކިމީޑިޔާގެ މީޓާ-ވިކީ އަށް މަރުހަބާ! މިވެބްސައިޓަކީ ވިކިމީޑިޔާގެ ހުރިހާ މަޝްރޫޢުތަކާއި ބެހޭގޮތުން ވާހަކަތައް ދެކެވި އެ މަޝްރޫޢެއް ހިންގައި ހަދާ ވެބް ސައިޓެވެ. އަޅުގަނޑުމެންގެ ޤަވާއިދުތައް ފުރަތަމަ ވިދާޅުވުމަކީ މުހިންމު ކަމެއް ކަމުގައި ދެކެމެވެ. ތަރުޖަމާކުރާ ހިތްޕުޅުވެވަޑައިގަންނަވާ ނަމަ މީޓާ:ބެބިލޯން އަށް ވަޑައިގަންނަވާށެވެ. އަދި ހަމަ އެހެންމެ މިކަމާއި ބެހޭ ލިޔުމެއް މީޓާ:ބޭބެލް ގައި ލިޔުއްވަވާށެވެ. (އެހެންނަމަވެސް އެޞަފްޙާގައި އެއްވެސް އެއްޗެއް އިތުރު ކުރެއްވުމުގެ ކުރިން އެ ޞަފްހާގެ މަތީގައިވާ ޢިބާރާތް ވިދާޅުވެލައްވާށެވެ.) މިއާއި މުދު ހިތްހަމަޖެހިވަޑައިގަންނަވާ ނަމަ އިތުރު އެހީ އަށް އެދުމަށް މި ޞަފްހާ ގައި އެދުމަށް ފަސްޖެހި ވަޑައި ނުގަންނަވާށެވެ. އުނިއިތުރު ގެނައުމުގައި އުފާވެރި ވަގުތުކޮޅެއް ހޭދަ ކޮށްލައްވާށެވެ!!

Hello Abd, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Meta:Metapub (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). If you would like, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Happy editing!

Hola Abd! Bienvenido a la Meta-Wiki de la Fundación Wikimedia! Este sitio es para coordinar y discutir todos los proyectos de la Fundación Wikimedia. Tal vez le sea útil leer nuestra página de políticas (en inglés). Si le interesan las traducciones, visite Meta:Babylon. También puede dejar un mensaje en Meta:Babel o Meta:Metapub (pero antes de hacerlo, por favor lea las instrucciones situadas en lo alto de la página). No dude en preguntar si tiene cualquiera duda, o pregunte en mi página de discusión. Buena suerte!

Hei Abd, ja tervetuloa Wikimedian Meta-Wikiin! Tämä nettisivusto on kaikkien Wikimedia-säätiön projektien koordinointia ja keskustelua varten. Saattaa olla hyödyllistä lukea käytäntömme. Jos olet kiinnostunut käännöksistä, käy Meta:Babylon-sivulla. Voit myöskin jättää huomautuksen Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub -sivulle (ole hyvä ja lue ohjeet sivun yläosassa ennenkuin kirjoitat sinne). Jos haluat, saat vapaasti kysyä minulta kysymyksiä keskustelusivullani. Iloisia muokkaushetkiä!

Bonjour Abd, et bienvenue sur le Meta-Wiki de Wikimédia ! Ce site a pour but de coordonner et discuter de l’ensemble des projets Wikimédia. Il vous sera utile de consulter notre page sur les règles de Wikimédia. Si vous êtes intéressé par des projets de traduction, visitez Meta:Babylon. Vous pouvez aussi laisser un message sur Meta:Babel ou Meta:Metapub (mais veuillez d’abord lire les instructions en haut de cette page avant d’y poster votre message). Si vous le voulez, vous pouvez me poser vos questions sur ma page de discussion. À bientôt !

נכתב בלשון זכר למען הנוחות
היי Abd, וברוך בואך ל- ויקימדיה מטא-ויקי! אתר זה נועד בכדי לתאם פעולות ולדון בפרויקטים של וויקימדיה. יש להניח שדפי המדיניות שלנו יהיו שימושיים עבורך. אם הנך מעוניין לבצע עבודות תרגום, בקר ב-Meta:Babylon. תוכל גם להשאיר הערה ב-Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub, (אנא קרא את ההוראות בראש הדף לפני כתיבה שם). אם תרצה, הרגש חופשי לרשום לי שאלות בדף השיחה שלי. עריכה נעימה!

Helló Abd, és üdv a Wikimedia Meta-Wikijén! Ez a weboldal az összes Wikimedia projektet érintő ügyek megtárgyalására és koordinálására szolgál. Hasznosnak találhatod elolvasni az irányelveinket (angolul). Ha szeretnél fordításokat végezni, látogasd meg a Meta:Babylon-t, vagy a Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub, oldalon hagyhatsz üzenetet (mielőtt ide írsz kérlek olvasd el a lap tetején található utasításokat). Ha szeretnél, nyugodtan kérdezz tőlem a vitalapomon. Jó szerkesztést és tartalmas szórakozást! Jó szerkesztést és tartalmas szórakozást!

Halló Abd, vertu velkomin(n) á Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Þessi síða er til að ræða saman um öll Wikimedia-verkefni og samhæfa þau. Kannski finnst þér gagnlegt að lesa stefnusíðuna. Hafir þú áhuga á þýðingum er Meta:Babylon rétti staðurinn. Þú mátt skrifast á við okkur í Meta:Babel eða Meta:Metapub (vinsamlegast lestu notkunarreglurnar áður en þú breytir síðunni). Hikaðu ekki við að hafa samband við mig á spjallsíðu minni ef þú hefur einhverjar spurningar. Gangi þér vel!

Halo Abd, dan selamat datang di Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Situs web ini berperan sebagai tempat koordinasi dan diskusi mengenai seluruh proyek-proyek Wikimedia. Mungkin akan bermanfaat bagi Anda untuk membaca halaman kebijakan kami. Jika Anda tertarik untuk melakukan penerjemahan, kunjungi Meta:Babylon. Anda juga dapat meninggalkan pesan di Meta:Babel atau Meta:Metapub (bacalah petunjuk di bagian atas halaman tersebut sebelum meninggalkan pesan di sana). Jika perlu, Anda dapat bertanya kepada saya di halaman pembicaraan (talk page) saya. Selamat menyunting!

Ciao Abd! Benvenuto sulla Meta-Wiki della Wikimedia Foundation! Questo sito serve a coordinare e discutere di tutti i progetti della Wikimedia Foundation. Potrebbe esserti utile leggere le nostre policy (in inglese). Se sei interessato a fare traduzioni, visita Meta:Babylon. Puoi anche lasciare un messaggio su Meta:Babel o Meta:Metapub (ma per favore, leggi le istruzioni che si trovano all'inizio della pagina prima di scrivere). Se vuoi, puoi lasciarmi un messagio nella mia pagina di discussione. Buona fortuna!

Abdさん、ウィキメディア メタ・ウィキへようこそ!このサイトは、ウィキメディアのプロジェクト間の調整や話し合いを目的としています。もしよろしければ、ポリシーページを是非ご一読下さい。もし翻訳に興味をお持ちなら、Meta:Babylonをご覧下さい。Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub にメッセージを投稿していただくことも可能です(投稿前にページ上部の説明をお読み下さい)。もしよろしければ私のノートページに質問をお寄せ下さい。

Abd님, Wikimedia Meta-Wiki에 회원가입하신 것을 환영합니다! 이 사이트는 모든 위키미디어 프로젝트들 간의 상호조정(coordinate)과 토론을 위한 공간입니다. 우리의 정책을 보면, 도움이 되실 겁니다. 만약 번역에 관심이 있으시다면, Meta:Babylon을 방문해 보세요. 또한 Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub 을 사용하실 수도 있습니다. (사용하시기 전에 바벨의 사용설명란을 먼저 읽어주세요). 만약 궁금한 것이 있으시면, talk page에 질문을 올려주세요. 즐거운 편집이 되시길 바랍니다!

Hai Abd, dan selamat datang ke Meta-Wiki Wikimedia! Laman web ini adalah untuk mengkoordinasikan dan membincangkan segala Projek-projek Wikimedia. Anda boleh mendapati bahawa membaca laman polisi kita adalah berfaedah. Jika anda berminat dalam membuat penterjemahan, sila melawat Meta:Babylon. Anda juga boleh meninggalkan pesanan di Meta:Babel atau Meta:Metapub (sila baca panduan di atas laman yang berkenaan sebelum meninggalkan pesanan). Jika anda mahu, tanyalah soalan di laman perbualan saya. Selamat menyunting!

Hallo Abd, en welkom op de Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Deze website is voor het coördineren en bespreken van alle Wikimedia-projecten. Waarschijnlijk vind je het handig om onze beleidpagina te lezen. Als je geïnteresseerd bent in het vertalen van teksten, ga da naar Meta:Babylon. Je kunt ook een bericht achterlaten op Meta:Babel of Meta:Metapub (lees wel de instructies aan het begin van de pagina voordat je een bericht achterlaat). Als je nog vragen hebt stel ze me dan op mijn overlegpagina. Veel plezier met bewerken!

Hei Abd, og velkommen til Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Denne siden er til for å diskutere og samordne alle Wikimediaprosjektene. Vil du vite mer om siden, kan vår policy-side komme til nytte. Er du interessert i å hjelpe til med oversettelser, besøk Meta:Babylon. Du kan også legge igjen en beskjed på Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub (vær vennlig og les instruksjonene øverst på siden før du skriver noe der). Hvis du vil, er du velkommen til å stille spørsmål på min diskusjonsside. God redigering!

Cześć Abd i witaj w projekcie Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Ta strona została stworzona do koordynacji i dyskusji nad wszystkimi projektami Fundacji Wikimedia. Proszę Cię o przeczytanie naszych zasad. Jeżeli chcesz się zając tłumaczeniem stron, odwiedź Meta:Babylon. Możesz również zostawić notkę na stronie Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub, (proszę jednak, abyś najpierw przeczytał instrukcje na górze tej strony). Jeżeli będziesz potrzebował pomocy zostaw komentarz na mojej stronie dyskusji. Miłego edytowania!

Olá Abd! Seja bem-vindo ao Meta! Este site/sítio é dedicado à discussão e à coordenação de todos os demais projetos da Fundação Wikimedia. Talvez lhe seja útil ler a página contendo a nossa política (em inglês) antes de começar a editar. Se tiver dúvidas, sinta-se à vontade para me fazer perguntas em minha página de discussão, ou deixe uma mensagem para toda a comunidade na Babel, Meta:Metapub, a versão do Meta da Esplanada. Boa sorte!

Ciao Abd, şi bine aţi venit la Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Acest website este pentru coordonarea şi discuţiile tuturor proiectelor Wikimedia. Este folositor să citiţi pagina despre politica noastră.. Dacă sunteţi interesaţi de traducere, vizita-ţi Meta:Babylon. De asemenea puteţi lasa o notă pe Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub, (vă rugăm citiţi instrucţiunile de la începutul paginii înainte de a posta acolo). Dacă ai întrebări, nu ezita să mă întrebi pe pagina mea de discuţii talk page. Editare cu succes!

Здравствуйте, Abd, и добро пожаловать на Мета-вики фонда Викимедиа! Этот сайт предназначен для координации и обсуждения вопросов, связанных со всеми проектами фонда. Для начала предлагаю ознакомиться с правилами этого проекта. Если Вы заинтересованы в работе над переводами страниц Мета-вики и других материалов, посетите Meta:Babylon. Вы также можете обсудить различные вопросы на странице Meta:Babel или Meta:Metapub (пожалуйста, ознакомьтесь с инструкцией сверху, прежде чем писать). Если возникнут вопросы, не бойтесь задавать их мне на моей странице обсуждения. Удачи!

Tjeta Abd, dhe mirësevin në Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Ky vënd i rrjetës është për të koordinuar dhe diskutuar çdo projekt të Wikimediës. Mund ta gjësh të dobishme faqet e politikës sonë. Në qoftë se je duke interesuar në përkthime, vizitò Meta:Babylon. Mund të lësh një shënim në Meta:Babel ose Meta:Metapub (të lutem të lexosh përdorimet në fillim të fletës para se të postosh atje). Në qoftë se do, ndihu i/e lirë të më bsh pyetje në faqen time të diskutimit. Të auguroj një redaktim të këndshëm!

Здраво Abd, и добро дошли на Викимедијин мета-вики! Овај сајт служи за координацију и дискусију око Викимедијиних пројеката. Вероватно ће Вам бити корисно да прочитате наше странице везане за политику рада. Ако сте заинтересовани за превођење, посетите Meta:Babylon. Можете такође и оставити поруку на страници Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub (молимо погледајте упутства на врху те странице пре него што пошаљете свој коментар тамо). Ако имате неко питање, можете да ми поставите на мојој страници за разговор. Срећно уређивање!

Hej Abd, och välkommen till Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Meta är till för att diskutera och samordna alla Wikimedias projekt. Vill du veta mer om webbplatsen, kan vår policy-sida komma väl till pass. Är du intresserad av att hjälpa till med översättningar, besök Meta:Babylon. Du kan skriva diskussionsinlägg på Meta:Babel eller Meta:Metapub (läs instruktionerna överst på sidan innan du skriver något där). Om du vill, är du välkommen att ställa frågor på min diskussionssida. Lycka till med redigerandet!

வணக்கம் Abd, விக்கிமீடியா மேல்விக்கி! இற்கு நல்வரவு. இவ்விணையத்தளமானது கூட்டாகச் சேர்ந்து விடயங்களை விவாதிப்பதற்கென உருவாக்கப் பட்டது. விக்கித்திட்டங்கள். நீங்கள் எங்களின் பாலிசிகளையும் பாலிசி பக்கம் படித்தறியலாம். நீங்கள் மொழிபெயர்பில் ஆர்வமுடையவராகின், Meta:Babylon ஐப் பார்வையிடவும். நீங்கள் Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub இல் குறிப்பொன்றையும் விட்டுச் செல்லலாம். (பக்கத்தின் மேலேயிருக்கும் அறிவுறுத்தல்களை வாசித்தபின்னரே அங்கே செய்திகளை இடவும்). நீங்கள் விரும்பினால் எனது பக்கத்தில் செய்தியொன்றை விடவும் talk page. உங்கள் ஆக்கங்களை வரவேற்கின்றோம்!

Abd, 你好!歡迎光臨維基媒體元維基!這個網站是為協調和討論所有維基媒體項目而設。我們的政策頁可能對您有用。如果您有興趣協助翻譯工作, 請參觀Meta:Babylon。你可在 Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub 留下口訊 (張貼之前請先讀該頁上指示)。若有問題, 請在我的討論頁問我 。祝
編安!

EVula // talk // // 16:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Inclupedia[edit]

Please show your support. Inclupedia/supporters Tisane 05:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Request[edit]

"There were canvassed votes, including, by the way, Diego Grez, evidence provided on request." <-- Okay, I'm requesting the evidence, if you please. Diego Grez return fire 20:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, since it is you asking, let's keep it simple. How did you come to vote in the series of discussions Ottava started, specifically, these votes: [1], [2], and [3]. Might as well add [4].
Since we are here on meta, how about [5] and [6].
(If it were someone else, I'd just provide the evidence and argument, but it's silly to provide you, at this point, with evidence, when you surely know the truth yourself.) --Abd 21:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Lol, you're not assuming good faith. Let's say, it is a topic that interests me, but since I am being accused of being canvassed by someone else, well, I'm not going participate on any other discussion on this crap. Diego Grez return fire 21:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
AGF? Where not assumed? I asked you. I'm giving you the opportunity to say what happened. You aren't on trial here. "being canvassed" isn't a crime. Anyway, thanks. Your answer saves trouble. Good luck. --Abd 22:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-apology[edit]

I'm sorry that you think the legitimate concerns I raised in Djsasso's election are non-reasons. If you've bothered to check the links above, e.g. the "globalcontribs" and "crosswikiness" and what Stewardry is all about, you'll see exactly why I abstained from voting, why I gave reasons for both support and oppose, and why it was perfectly okay for people to say that they opposed based on my reasonings. There was absolutely no contact I made with Ottava whatsoever, in fact, it was first me who raised the concerns. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, TCNSV. I made no claim of contact with Ottava, and I hadn't suspected that for you. However, I don't agree that stewards must be perfectly responsive, ab initio, some will grow into the job. I'm looking for evidence of actual harm, other than possible poor response to Ottava. Ottava brings those kinds of responses out in people. I'm still concerned about the apparent poor response, Djsasso defending himself, etc. Active stewards are going to arouse the ire of disruptive users, and it's important, I'll agree, that their responses not make the situation worse.
One of the problems with wiki structure is that sometimes the consensus doesn't awaken, abuse is not noticed, and it takes someone making a fuss to bring it up, and, I've seen this for coming up on 25 years, often the fuss-maker is perceived as the problem. In the case of a steward, as fuss-maker, others, then, will see the behavior as "unbecoming a steward." Indeed, it can be. It looks like Djsasso is not going to be elected. In fact, what would be better would be something like mentored stewardship, allowing access to steward tools under supervision of a mentor-steward, who would guide someone like Djsasso if they blow it. "Simmer down, Djsasso, let the community sort this." I don't consider perfection a requirement for any volunteer position, but do consider an ability to learn and change, or at least respond to positive correction, critical. --Abd 14:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
(in response to this and your response to me above) You fail to assume good faith. Now you are associating Telecomnasprven with Ottava, come on, not everythin' is a mafia. And I'm not part of one, your comments on my "supposed" canvassing are certainly wrong, can't I keep an eye on Meta and Wikiversity matters from time to time? Just because Ottava raised concerns which I partly agreed and then I voted in a way that "supports" him does not mean I had been canvassed. Anyway, this talk is not worth it. Diego Grez return fire 21:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I asked you, Diego, and, so far, you have evaded the question. That's your privilege, but your stock with me went through the floor, because evasive responses like that are in themselves a serious problem. Too bad. Deny that you were canvassed, tell how you came across the discussions I asked about, and you will believed. Unless it's preposterous.
I did not "associate TCNSV with Ottava. Care to provide a diff? Maybe I don't remember!
Diego, what happened to you? You seemed quite reasonable at first on Wikiversity, until votes in your permanent custodian hearing were canvassed and not deprecated on WV, as they should have been, so you lost custodianship. You could have requested it back *immediately,* were you aware of that? The proposed close mentioned this. Why did you give up? Something doesn't sit right here. I assumed good faith .... until your series of evasive responses. --Abd 21:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Er, I think I said I saw the editions by IRC (not mentioned exactly I saw them by IRC, but that's how I catched them), I have a bot, DuiPelado-RC, which idles at #pitsilemu@irc.freenode.net which "stalks" certain users and pages across the Wikimedia wikis (the bot is currently down, as I did not renew my Toolserver account because my computer is broken, and I had my key to login on it), that's how I came to the different pages which involved Ottava, etc, I was not being canvassed. As for the Wikiversity and the custodianship, I may comeback some day there, but not right now. Diego Grez return fire 21:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You didn't say that, and you still haven't actually said it. Now, at least, you implied it. You "saw the editions by IRC." What does that mean? What did you see?

now I see that he had a stalk bot send him edits by IRC... I'll review, elsewhere, just how rapidly this allowed Diego to respond, to highly abusive proposals by Ottava, with absolutely no opportunity for any contrary evidence or argument to be presented for his consideration, and no time for thought. He didn't need to consider, he already had an agenda. Why, I don't know. He hasn't revealed it. --Abd 22:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You voted on some very important issues, very possibly shifting the outcome, without caring enough about Wikiversity to "come back"? Sorry, you aren't really welcome back, as far as I'm concerned. You wrote, as part of this mess, that you only came to WV and volunteered as a probationary custodian so you could get experience with the tool interface. You never took the time, apparently, to understand what Wikiversity was about, why some people think that WV is the possible salvation of the WMF, eventually. You don't understand basic traditions, such as returning ops when they are resigned not under a cloud. Or closing a discussion that is in radically the wrong place, until it is moved to the right place, by someone willing to be responsible for it. Basically, Diego, you helped make a big mess, and you looked the other way when faced with the greatest disruptive sequence I've ever seen. People like you helped Ottava to continue until he was finally blocked here. Congratulations. --Abd 21:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

<Outdent> I made a test edit for you to see it actually works, and reports the edits instantly:

(19:08:28) WolfnixBot-RC: [[User:Diego Grez/sandbox]]; Diego Grez; creating sandbox; it is additionally a test edit to show Abd I have a "stalk bot" on IRC, other users might prove it too, but I don't want to bother anybody.; http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=2372877&rcid=2436021

Yes, I don't really care if I'm welcome back at Wikiversity, for a reason I said "not right now", not until people that do make the "mess" you mention go out. So, you mean SB Johnny did not "resign under a cloud". He was evading the problems, why didn't he just face them? It's not the community's fault that he was affected by Jimbo's decisions, don't you think? After all, he is the founder. Wikiversity as it is now is a mess, and I have not been part of that for a good while, you know. Basically, Ottava Rima's position was more realistically truthful than SB Johnny's, Mikeu's (and maybe even your) plot to have the power of Wikiversity, and at a certain degree they have achieved it. That's sad. And no, I don't wish congratulations. Diego Grez return fire 22:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That's right. Diego. SBJ did not resign under a cloud. Jimbo desysopped, but then restored the bits, SBJ resigned something like two weeks later, facing no pending process or charges. You bought Ottava's propaganda, hook, line, and sinker. Ottava lied about SBJ, again and again, and he lied because he found that some people, like you, would believe him. You trained him to lie. --Abd 22:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Note[edit]

I've commented an advice on another user's talk. --M/ 00:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw it and responded there. By the way, I've speculated on why you reset Ottava's block, it made sense to me that you'd do it, and I think it was proper. No obligation, but, if you find the inclination and time, I'd like to hear why you did it. --Abd 00:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:Mabuabsdd[edit]

You can whitelist locally the global block at v:Special:GlobalBlockWhitelist to educate these users with the "wiki rules" at enwikiv only. Up to now they have done crosswiki problematic edits (most of them deleted), when i see good contributors i can remove the global block. Feel free to poke me if you need help --Melos 16:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The GlobalBlockWhitelist must be new? (i.e, Bug 23312 was fixed.) In any case, what I have from you is an opinion that Wikiversity editing is okay, as long as the WV community supports it, and so we can use that whitelist or other means to allow this user or users to edit locally, while still protecting the other wikis from disruptive editing, which these kids may do as they learn. Thanks. --Abd 18:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Ottava's talk page[edit]

I don't think it is fair to apply pressure over an already blocked editor. Do you really think that meta.wiki sysops will not look through latest user contributions and pages history prior to grant or refuse an unblock requests? --M/ 19:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think they probably will, but sometimes administrators aren't thorough. I can point to a steward action that was contrary to policy, where the steward was led by the nose by Ottava, who misrepresented the policy. That's only as an example, it became moot quickly. I don't blame the steward, it was an easy mistake to make, given what he was fed by Ottava.
If an admin does make a mistake, sometimes they are reluctant to acknowledge it. So, in this case, an unblock might be difficult to fix. I'm not talking about pressure, I'm talking about pointing to an RfC that has remained open since October, that was much more proper as a basis for a block or ban, than any immediate reaction to immediate incivility.
Ottava had very ample opportunity to respond to the RfC. If that RfC is closed with the obvious conclusion, by a neutral administrator, then the present block can be replaced by one based on the conclusion, whatever that is. --Abd 20:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

By way of warning[edit]

I am only just on line now and will be out shortly so it will be a while before I can catch up with the overnight traffic. However it is fair to say that I am increasingly finding you part of the problem to issues here rather than part of the solution. Please refrain from the sniping behaviour you are indulging in. --Herby talk thyme 08:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

For this to have the effect of a warning, I will need, at least, an example of "sniping behavior," by which I would hope that you would not include ordinary process of participation in decision-making by presentation of evidence and argument. I will be careful, regardless. Thanks. --Abd 17:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Abigor[edit]

Hi Abd, I've promised to leave Abigors talk page alone so I'm not reacting there. I think the first step to ensure privacy savety is to include a NOINDEX to pages that might infringe privacy information. On nl.wp it's good practice to use a NOINDEX to keep privacy information out of search machine results. As you can see also a NOINDEX is placed on Abigors blockmessage. I won't say it's the only thing that can be done, but more like a supplement to what you're proposing. I think it should be quite easy to place a NOINDEX on the pages related to Abigors privacy here on meta for a start. Silver Spoon 08:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a template for this on meta: template:NOINDEX. Silver Spoon 08:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Silver Spoon. I've notified Abigor and have offered to do this for him. I let him know you made the suggestion, he might appreciate that. --Abd 20:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Reopening of a steward request[edit]

Regarding this edit, the stewards set the status of steward requests and no one else. It's fine to comment after the status has been set to not done; note I didn't use {{sr-closed}}. Please don't do this again. Thank you. fr33kman 22:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks, Fr33kman, of course I wouldn't do it again. I wasn't insisting, just asking! That was a request for reconsideration, and if it was improper for me to "open" it explicitly, like that, I apologize. What I did in asking Dferg and Herbythyme may have been more important. Thanks. --Abd 23:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comment[edit]

I responded to your comment on my talk page, and thank you for calling it to my attention. Philippe (WMF) 08:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the group of administrators with a non correct behavior[edit]

Hello, im Dopper or , Melgarath user, you suggested me it would be a better way to discuss my request here, or inform me about how i can present an offitial complain to some kind of authority that can help to check if what i say is correct. Ok So what i got from your reply is that it is a very complex stuff. I though that yea i could uhm kind of say i had seem some bad behavior and that stewards would check if it is true and fix it if it is; ok it does not seem it works like that. You said i should contact to a Local Authority, of what kind? i am new in wikipedia. About if there is a mafia or not, well maybe it was a gross thing to say , they are a group of people who delete, and associate one each other for a long time, and happen to agree in all taht is convinient to any of them, and some of his actions are " ilegal" with respect to wikipedia rules. ( same i dogded my blocking twice, i have no excuse, i was just upset, and wanted to keep writing on the discussion of the article, as i said, it is not about my blocking, it is about actions they carried out towards others , like susan sontag user, etc). Ok so thansk for informing me, and well, if u coudl indicate me how i can contact a local " authority" user or.. something like taht , who could check the stuff, and decide. Thanks.--Dopper.Melgarath

Okay, lets start with basics. When you leave a comment, sign it using four tildes ( ~~~~ ) which will automatically add your user name and the time of the edit. Be sure to be logged in. That way, we know it is from you.
Before you can draw any conclusions about the community that runs es.wikipedia, you should observe it for a substantial time. The encyclopedias are community projects, not just a collection of the work of disconnected people. You believed you were "right," but you don't have the experience to understand the community position. Unless you understand that position, you certainly cannot correct it.
First question: are you blocked from editing your own Talk page? Is your access to email blocked? Do you know? If not, please find out! If you need help finding out, is your user name on es.wikipedia "Dopper.Megarath" or what?
Be patient. Lack of patience, indeed, was what got you into trouble! Do not, at this point, use any other account but your main account. If you have such accounts, let me know. If you don't want to reveal them in public, you may send me email through the interface here. (You'll have to have email enabled on meta to do this, it's in your user Preferences.) I will only use that information to advise you, I will keep it confidential, it will be up to you whether or not to reveal it to the community. --Abd 20:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

My user name is Melgarath 15:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC) i did try to contact at the board of adds of the " librarians" in the wiki.es but so far they did not pay attention to me. Maybe eventually they do, is there something else i can do? Thanks Melgarath 15:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

To my mind, you were treated a bit harshly. You were making mistakes that newcomers often make. I'm not going to judge whether or not you should have been blocked, but you responded to the first block with a complicated answer that didn't address the concerns of the blocking admin, and obviously did not impress the reviewing administrator, which I'd expect from what you wrote. You simply justified yourself, excused yourself, leading an admin to conclude that problems would continue.
You made 15 edits to Talk for Craton on July 19. That's huge. Way too much, and it was too much text you ended up with. I see why it was concluded that you were harassing him. My own understanding of recusal is that Craton should not have blocked you, but someone else would have. 88.5.13.173, while you were blocked, carried on your quest. That would look to them like it was you. I don't know if they verified this, they could have used checkuser to find out if this was you. Or they might just have made an assumption.
Melgarath, did you edit while blocked? If so, what account or IP did you use? I can then check to see what happened, I'm not wanting to guess.
It is possible that you can recover if you fully and honestly disclose all that happened, and if you can realize what mistakes you made, and admit them. You clearly did make some mistakes. I don't like that Craton shut off your talk page access, and to fix this, if it's not just going to be a waste of time, I'd see about requesting that your talk page access be restored. I won't do that unless I see some sign that there won't be future problems.
Please notice that I'm not an administrator and I have no authority, but I do know how to make requests that might be honored.
One step at a time. Please answer my question about any editing you did while blocked. Don't worry, I'm not going to judge or condemn you, my goal is to help you. I can recommend that you disclose this openly and fully, but if you don't want to, you can still send me email and I will keep it confidential. I just need to know, or I may give you bad advice!
Then, can you tell me what mistakes you made? How would you avoid future problems if you are allowed to edit again? If you do not understand, I'll try to explain, okay? --Abd 17:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

yes, i did make mistakes, based on my lackof patiente, and it is true, i have two IPs, and i edited from one and 2, respectivebly, and i though the administrator knew it. After taht i got blocked.yes, i over wrote, but sincerely, i was not agressive, and i did not " molest" i was talking on the topic, servetus, and i went there cause all the discussion was transported there, by some users, I dont think craton is a " bad guy" i think he got overwhelmed by the discussion, and simply actually thought i was somekind of fanatic. But i am not, i give data, and the rest of users dont. I got blocked, yes, and i didnt understand why. Yes i thought it was something about the ammount of info i had written down. It was a lot, now i try to teach myself i cant write so much, but duno, i tend to over explain the things? it can also be cause the other users would not want to hear what i have to say. Yes, i got blocked, i asked why and, i realized that from one of my ips i could edit again, so well i thought i was unblocked, but no, it seems i cant use that ip for anything if i used is as melgarath, it was never my intention to hide myself, cause i did sign the comments, though i was not signed up. Yes and i think it woudl be good if i were told how many days i am blocked, cause, it seems it affected my IPs differently, the 2 of em, and i got to make comments that i signed. Ok the second time it is a mistake the 1st one i thought i was unblocked. And yes i did write with capital letters and i can be ironical. It is not an excuse, it is a mistake. but i tried to use it for remarking what users weren paying attention to, i was dumb, cause that was precisely the one thing they had for accusing me of being " bad". And well, i did not change my discussion conversation i think, but the 1st few days, the rest of times i was trying to revert erased comments from private discussioins, of enrique cordero and those users, cause simply they had erased it cause they wanted to, and had retained others they wanted, i dont know the rules of wikipedia but i thought that is bad, if it is not offensive, all should be there , isnt it?. So yes, i made mistakes, i over wrote,, i got ironical. and i could get , not agressive but got extremely passionated, And yes , i thought if administrators didnt hbehave ok, i could talk to someone for their misbehavior, same way they can block me. So i said " u are erasing comments form ur private discussion, taht is not ok, i will tell to the stewards" and those kind of things was waht got me blocked, the 3rd time. Ok sorry i guess i am writting too much again. Now i think i got " expused" from the miguel servet article? i am not sure of what that means. I am struggling to find some administrator taht would pay attention to the historical referencies, better if he is a historian himself, so basically, i gave data, they didnt like my data, they gave some false one, i counter attacked saying on what it was not true, they flew from teh conversation, i went to craton, i over wrote, i got blocked, i didnt know until when, i got to realize i could edit, i did for preciselly fight back against the reference that had made me blocked, i got to make taht clear i think, and then i got blocked again, and then i tried to stop comments erasing from private discussions, and i got my 3rd block. So yes, i did mistakes, and i am sorry for it. But i dont think i am molesting, intimidating, or those things they said of me. and im sorry about that cause it is the one weapon they had against me. I have no excuse for my mystakes, but that i felt realy discouraged, seeing that i am giving real information, based on legal and offitialdocuments, and i have a group of people that try to block it , giving no data, cause they want this character to be born in the previous place, and not in the one that that researcher says, with data. And they attack him, and want to grant him no recognition. Sincerely , he has discovered half of the works of michael servetus, and, to see how they try to go for him makes me sad and, depressed, i know the truth will get into spanish wikipedia someday, but i wonder why not now, if the international society of history of medicine , which is huge, supoorts him. Wel thanks for listening to me. Yes i made mistakes,on jumping my blocking 3 times, and write a lot and with too much passion, but i sincerely thing thats it, im sorry, so i would edit shortly, with normal letters and less entrances.Melgarath 19:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

And well i was not particularly interested in defending myself, but in defending the ideas i say, i though i could find a historian administrator that would see the truth, sincerelly , is for u the same a notary document of the same year of the character than a sentence from a biography of 400 years later that does not lead to any oficial document. I dunno, for me and for historians is evident. I am amazed about some people saying the contrary. Well, Thanks for ur advices, what do i do now?Melgarath 19:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe i wrote too much, basically , yes i made mistakes, i accept em and i wont excuse myself, my intention was never bad, and i tried to focus on references, and offitial data about the topic. And i evaded my blocking 3 times, teh 1st one i did not know i was blocked, and the other 2, i was lacking pacience. But more than about my username im more interested in defending what i wrote , but.. the best idea woudl be to do it by myself?---Melgarath 22:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 22:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

My current IP is 87.222.153.188 , i dont know if that other u say it is mine, i have 2,and i thought they were known, i dunno which the other one is, but can be checked , it should be in my first edition of the article.--Melgarath 00:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm very busy today with my children. You can look on sp.wikipedia, at the pages you edited, to find the IP addresses involved. Please do that work to help me check things out. Your full disclosure on this will eventually help, I believe. If there were IP edits that were not you, but that es.wiki administrators may have thought was you, please let me know. Do be aware that checkusers can verify things, if needed, and they can be quite sophisticated, so don't even be tempted to deny something that you actually did, but don't be shy to deny something that you are sure you did not do. --Abd 19:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


Ok, i will verify that IP, im very busy with my work these days too, i cant come back to this for some days. Yea, well it would help also if i would know what comments u reffear to, i could remember em by quoting em.--Melgarath 11:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  • You wrote, above, i though i could find a historian administrator that would see the truth, sincerelly , is for u the same a notary document of the same year of the character than a sentence from a biography of 400 years later that does not lead to any oficial document. I dunno, for me and for historians is evident. I am amazed about some people saying the contrary.
  • I only know, well, en.wikipedia policy, but I'm guessing it's the same on es.wiki. What is so for experts is not so for the editors of an encyclopedia. Experts know how to judge the validity of primary documents like what you mention, and to place them in context. Editors don't, unless they happen to be historians, and if the primary document you mention is not covered in reliable secondary sources (such as a biography written 400 years later), then for an editor who is an expert to judge the primary source is original research, which is generally prohibited. Sometimes if editors can agree, a primary source can be used, but with great care. So, because you did not understand the policy, you were headed for trouble.
  • Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit." That means that it must have ways of determining the neutrality and verifiability of text that do not depend on being an expert. Wikipedia does this by depending on "reliable secondary sources," mostly. If you look closely, "reliable" does not have the ordinary meaning. It really means that the source was published by an independent publisher whose reputation depends on the quality of what it publishes. It doesn't mean that the material sourced is "true." Where reliable sources conflict, then Wikipedia will attempt to present, in a neutral way, what exists in reliable sources. If it isn't in reliable source, it has no right to be in the project, even if, to an expert, it's "true."
  • If you want to write on history using original research, you might be able to do it on the Spanish Wikiversity, if the policies there are similar to those of en.wikiversity. It is also possible, if an educational resource at a Wikiversity were developed on Miguel Servet that an inter-wiki link could be placed in the es.wiki article. How the Wikiversities can supplement and enhance 'pedia articles is a big topic, not much explored yet.
  • Meanwhile, your editing was of a nature practically guaranteed to irritate administrators:
    • Miguel Servet. Many edits, perhaps insistent, such that an admin considered it necessary to protect the article. That was Cratón. You often did not use edit summaries, a common error of newcomers. That makes it hard for people to review your work. Cratón was not making a judgment of the content, only seeing that you were demanding and insisting on your position.
    • Talk:Miguel Servet. You made a huge number of edits to the Talk page, with no edit summaries. That alone will irritate regular users. Instead of recognizing and respecting the advice that you were given by the editors (which was simple and sound), you argued your position verbosely. The encyclopedia is a community project, and any individual who insists on being "right" is headed for trouble. You might or might not be able to get what you want into the article, but probably not. However, if there is a minority position among historians, you can probably do it, but how you do it is crucial. You must seek and find consensus. You will never do this with the kind of argumentation you presented. It was far, far too complicated, and ignorant of policy. You might know about Servet, I have no opinion on that, but you did not know es.wikipedia.
    • You did not use normal signatures, thus no date stamps.
    • User talk:Cratón You made many edits to the Talk page of the administrator who protected the article, as if this administrator was making a content decision. That would almost never be appropriate. The administrator protected the article to force the users to find consensus. If users came together to request unprotection or to request an edit under protection, then it could be done. I've seen admins make errors on Wikipedia about protection, but the solution is never to argue with the administrator. Simply pointing out the error might be enough. If not, the solution is to find consensus on the Article talk page. You don't find consensus by insisting on being right. You find it by, first, understanding what the other editors are telling you. Then you say what you still have to say and make a proposal that you think they might accept. You might go back and forth a few times, but each time should be brief. I got this wrong many times myself!
    • You were blocked by Cratón for two weeks. Instead of recognizing the primary cause, your own behavior, you continued to argue about the article, it looks like this to me. (But my Spanish is very bad.) on Talk:Miguel Servet, Papix advised you to wait out your block, and offered to help you, but you did not wait out the block, you edited "anonymously", I'm not certain if all of these were you: (--Abd 15:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC))

Edits that may have been Melgarath[edit]

(Melgarath responses in italics)

  • 5--- 85.54.235.37 That is me, one of my ips.
  • 4 edits July 21, 2011. No specific IP block.
  • 7---85.60.57.103 That is me, the other of my Ips.

Melgarath, you did not respond About SusanSontag. Do you know who that is? Do you think that there are any other IP edits that were you?

Edits here: Special:Contributions/87.222.153.188, no problem, no blocks. Signs Melgarath. Melgarath, if you forget to log in and sign, just log in and sign, you don't have to remove the IP contribution first. Your signing it acknowledges it as yours. Don't worry, you are only editing my Talk page and it's very unlikely that anyone would even think of blocking you here, as long as that's all you are doing, and as long as I continue to consent. You have my permission to --Melgarath 10:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)post here. Not a problem. If that changes, I'll tell you.

I see, however, that Ezarate has blocked your IP, 87.222.153.188. You didn't tell me about that. But I just looked at the actions of Ezarate, since this administrator had blocked you before, and I recognized the IP from here, so then I found the edits.

Melgarath, they are doing what you can predict will happen, if you come to understand how the wikipedias work (en.wikipedia would be about the same, I think). It's unfair, in a way, because they may not be explaining it all to you, but administrators get tired of explaining and may simply judge that a user isn't worth the effort. They are very busy, and they are volunteers, they are not paid. That's, as I say, not necessarily fair, but it is, very often, how the world works. If you want a community that is completely fair, I suggest going somewhere else besides Wikipedia, any of them. There is something else you could do, and I'll suggest it, but not yet. I want to see you get that you need to stop, unless your goal is to be completely and truly permanently banned. --Abd 23:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. thanks, well im busy with a lot of work this days. Well about susansontag, i dont know who she is, but the " true" susan sontag, the philosopher. I guess she was a user that read the discussion and i convinded her, and so she was defending me, and for she said she is from aragon, at spain, she might understand what i mean. Craton blocked her cause it seems she created her user name for editing the disucssion. I dont know if that is right or not, what does it mean? he thinks it is me? that is prejudgement? It is not me, but i liked what she wrote on the private discussions of escarlatti, that he reverted, and so i reverted the reversion, cause it was not fair. And it seems she defended me , yes and understood why i didnt accept the other reference they gave me. And taht is what some other users used for saying we were associated?--Melgarath 10:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments continued.[edit]

  • Please comment, with a signature, for each IP above, if it was you or if it was someone else.
  • You were finally fully blocked, Talk page access removed, 19:36 29 jul 2011 by Cratón.
  • I have not noticed any IP blocks related to your situation. Yet you stopped editing by IP. What happened?
    • Even if some of the above IPs were not you, some certainly were. You then presented an appearance of someone who would never be able to find agreement with the es.wiki community, so you were effectively banned. I don't like that Cratón played such a strong role, I'd have preferred to see this administrator step back for a neutral decision, but that's es.wiki business.
  • I have not noticed any IP blocks related to your situation. Yet you stopped editing by IP. What happened?
  • So, do you still want to be able to edit es.wikipedia, perhaps understanding the policies and how to work with the community better now? --Abd 15:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, i checked all up. responses that were below moved to match IPs mentioned --Abd 23:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I stopped editing via IP, cause they were reverting what I was writting, as it can be checked, saying i was blocked. So I thought though i could , I should not do it. Can i?I do that? Yes 2 Ips were me. those 2 I said, the 5th and 7th from the list, as I had told you before. But I think i always signed my comments, maybe some tiems i forgot, but i think i made clear it was me. I presented an appearance of someone who would never find an agreement, well, why is that?. But I did discuss with data, i think that can be checked. And i thought administrators should be rigurious judging references. I applied the historical method, as it is applied everywhere, for defending an info I can proove to be very acepted, more than their old theories, they have no document for. So yes, I thought craton woudl be an expert. Do you know some administrator or, dunno,expert on history , educated in that so She/He could see what i see is ok, and apply to someone on wiki.es? or.. well it is frustrating. I think administrators should be experts on judging references. They should know how it works. And i did agree. I agreed in putting an implicit reference on the book of that author . And later i proposed another topic, to reffer old info, propperly. They didnt want to reffear it to the man who gave the documents. and put a reference that ment nothing, i analized etc. I dont know, i dont think it is accurate i dont wanna agree. It is accurate i wanna defend with data all i say. And well yes i would like to keep editing wiki.es, understanding the policies. But i would like to know also ,if i can appeal to someone who has some authority on this historical research way of acepting info, this info is from national congresses, if u check this ip, i have edited on the board of administrators and the discussion, none pays attentino to me, though i gave so many internet links for making em see i dont lie about the acepted comunications of the international society of history of medicine. They keep saying none thinks that new info is ok. Well, it is acepted by a society that way bigger any they have mentioned. ( they have mentioned none). Yes I woudl like to keep editing. but I was thinking if i can do something like reffer to someone who has authority on judging historical info and say something like: " hey , this is the data, this people dont have documents, I show links of internatinoal congresses and newspapers about that new info, I gave the references , as in any book, with the refered documents fro the archives, coudnt u just simplycheck taht what i say it is true, and put in wikipedia what is prooved and accepted?" But i dont know if that is possible.It is a situation where they dont wanna see data, so i dont know what to do--Melgarath 21:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Now i am sincerelly getting upset, the administrators are removing my appeals from the board, this is..,ok?? Ezarate just made it , I have the right to appeal isnt it? I feel smashed by some administrators who dont want to hear of me. I feel bad--Melgarath 21:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And now he blocked my ip? I am gettin depressed on this, they block me they dont let me to edit anything, they dont let me appeal, i dont know if im beging abused, but i feel like that. It is al they do , blocking me here and there.--Melgarath 21:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Melgarath, specific advice. Stop! Do not try to edit es.wikipedia. Not at all. I might change that advice, but not until I have a better understanding of the situation, and I also want to see you be completely responsive. Your approach is certainly leading you to being completely banned. You are not actually banned yet, as far as I know, you have merely been blocked. It's called a "defacto ban," sometimes. It means that you will be treated as if you have been banned, but really banned will require that there be some kind of formal decision. If you keep trying to edit, sooner or later, someone will start that discussion and, at this point, that's it. You'll be banned, and it can take years to recover. As matters stand, if you stop, it might take a few weeks.
If you want to appeal, you do not appeal by evading the block and editing by IP. One step at a time. First step: Stop! Slow down. This will take time. You may have a right to appeal, indeed, but you must do it in the way prescribed. I don't know the specifics about es.wikipedia. Is there an arbitration committee?
And I'd say you aren't ready yet. If you asked now, you'd very likely get a negative answer, and if you have been editing by IP, at all, that has already made a negative answer more likely. You will need to know, first, what to promise, what conditions to set up so that some administrator will feel safe unblocking you. You'll need to be able to explain, clearly, what mistakes you made. If you can do that, it's very likely you can be unblocked. If not, it's very unlikely! --Abd 23:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
If I think you are really being abused, I'll tell you. I haven't really seen enough to know, and it's in Spanish, not my language. I haven't looked at what just happened, that is upsetting you. One thing at a time. I'll come back with more when I've had a chance to look. --Abd 23:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, ok i will stop, i did accept what mistakes i did. I mean i was simply trying to get a revision of the article, not to get unblocked. But it seems, for i am blocked, i can say nor do anything. Ok i will wait. Wel when i ment abused, i ment, overreverted, from the disccusion of teh article, private discussions etc. blocked,etc.Well im sorry.Ok i wont edit anymore. But one thing i wanted to ask u , can i appeal to someone, i mean, there is nobody that would check the historical references, from ahistorical point of view,and would pay attentino to the congresses of the huge international society of history of medicine? I mean, wikipedia does not have .. experts on references, history bachellored administrators, for advice or revision, .. or any kind of reference checking , revision, in a proffesional way? the last word comes from administrators, ( that sometimes accpet references not even saying teh line they mention)? Or can i appeal to some higher comitte of stewards , oversights or .. duno if there is anything else. Some people who do that, to check if what i say is true, and historically proved. Thanks for ur time. I appreciate. Well i will check ur answer but i wont write here anymore ok? Sorry about all this mess , and thanks again. --Melgarath 23:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There is lots you can do, possibly. But you don't yet know what it is. But you have started, with "I did accept what mistakes I made." But then you went and made some more!
Yes, there are ways to encourage people to look at the content arguments you were making. It takes time and it can be difficult. But it can be done.
Why are you giving up? We just started! It's your choice. You don't yet understand why things are the way they are at the wikipedias, and you don't understand how you could actually make a difference. It's not impossible, it is merely difficult, sometimes, more difficult than you thought. You imagined that there would be some kind of supervisor, or supervisory committee, that could fix the situation. No. There is only a community, that operates in certain ways, that you don't yet understand!
There is a place you could work, where you could develop educational resources, where you can actually use primary sources and do original research. You'll still need to learn how to work with a community, but it's more possible there because what is being built is not an encyclopedia. These are the wikiversities. I'm very active on en.wikiversity, I'm an administrator there at the present time. You could build a resource on Servetius there, in English, and if you listen and STOP when someone warns you, there will be less problem. There is es.wikiversity where it can be done in Spanish, but I don't know how similar policies are at es.wikiversity. Educational resources don't have to be "neutral." As you could in any university class, and would as an exercise, you can do that original research, you can use the documents you find. There are ways to make sure that the overall presentation is neutral, if anyone objects. If you edit war because you are "right," you can get blocked there almost as quickly as on the wikipedias, but it hardly ever happens, because the wikiversities have many more options.
You had the idea that what you needed to do was get a knowledgeable administrator to look at your evidence. That's completely incorrect, that would be an administrator making content decisions, and they don't, in theory, have the right to do that. They judge only behavior, like revert warring. Or evading a block! What administrators want to see is that you seek and find consensus with other editors.
You were unable to do that because you didn't understand the basic policies that everyone else was following. They seemed silly to you, isn't a birth certificate from the time more reliable than a biography written 400 years later?
You missed something about what an encyclopedia is, necessarily, and what the "encyclopedias that anyone can edit" must be, at least the way that it played out with the real projects. You want to do "original research." Original research looks at primary sources and comes up with new interpretations. If they aren't new, you will find them in works by scholars, already.
I think you ran into something where there may be some disagreement among scholars. That can be difficult and tricky. Some will insist that the article reflect the majority opinion, but that is, for en.wikipedia anyway, an error. It is supposed to reflect and show the balance of opinion as found in reliable secondary sources. So if you were promoting some idea that is a minority opinion, you would have to accept that it would be shown as a minority opinion, that will be the best you can get. You'll need to be patient and to make compromises. Some editors may try to exclude the minority opinion entirely, because they think it's "wrong." Again, that's just the way it is. It's not fair. The policies probably say something like what I wrote, that the text should be balanced, and if it is somewhere in reliable source, it should be possible to put it somewhere in the encyclopedia, even if with some statement like, "One historian, So-and-So, thought ... but that view has been rejected by most scholars...." or something like that. The real standard for what should be in the encyclopedia? The consensus of the editors!
And there is no committee or expert administrator who is going to take up your ideas and fight for them, almost certainly. All you can do is to express the ideas, carefully and respectfully. Or you are likely to be blocked or banned.
And few are interested in "discussing" these ideas. That's not the purpose of an article Talk page. You can do this on the wikiversities, because the purpose there is education. Not articles. --Abd 00:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
What do you understand so far? --Abd 00:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that was a good explanation. Well i got all. Yes, u are definetly right i didnt know how wikipedia was like, and i thought , for i knew there had been researchs that have given amazing results that change the previous birthplace and offer 9 new works about that author, i could simply require that to be changed. U are right, what matters is the consensus among the editors. I cant get that cause of a simple reason, when a public figure is born or is thought to be born in some place, they tend to form a umh , institution or experts comittee associated with that place, it is normal. So , many of the " experts" of servet , at spain, are associated with that, and many are from there( they are like 10, but they check wikipedia, and though many more foreing servetists have and accpet the new info, it does seem they dont edit, grr), it is a small village and u know, servetus was an amazing man, he fought john calvin, if he would have not been burnt, calvinism would have maybe failed, and usa would not be as we know it. anyway. Im saying this cause, for the fact that, that village was thought to be the birthplace of servetus, they were given teh title of " town" by the spanish gob, and they get money from the regional gob. I am not tryin to convince you, i just wanna make clear why i dont expect em to accept anything. You are right i can just be more calmed and keep discussing. And, to try to concvince and show the documents to foreing users, who dont have a strong interest in servet birthplace, and so , they would not denny 9 new works found by the same researcher who sais he was born in other place. I think the idea about wikiversia is interesting, besides when i can give graphical proof of all teh documents i mention, and besides when it seems it can have some relationship with wikipedia?I promise i will try to work on that. well, im a litle busy with work but at least i see hope in your advices, i will go back to you in few days ok?. Thank you--Melgarath 10:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Detailed description[edit]

Thank you for your time and a very detailed description in Meta of what can Checkusers and can not. --Brox 07:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

When I was being initiated into the arcane rituals of Wikipedia, meatball:DefendEachOther was pointed out to me. Sounded right to me. I did it for years, and, indeed, that's part of why I'm banned there. (The other part is much more complicated.) I defended some unpopular people, because I saw their worth in addition to whatever problems they had. In any case, it's kind of a lost art, it seems. Probably it's too much work.
However, Brox, you are a highly productive editor and administrator on lt.wikipedia. You are worth the effort. If you are having problems with that community, I'm confident you can work them out, with patience and respect. You had a behavioral problem on nl.wikipedia, I don't know why, maybe you were having a bad day. It happens. When you run into opposition, I highly recommend slowing down. It doesn't matter whether you are "right" or not, these are community projects, and we must be careful to enhance unity, i.e., seek consensus. We can't do it alone.
Good luck. Maybe I'll need defending some day, or someone else will. It's not about whether or not you were or were not operating "clones." People do that sometimes, and people are also falsely accused sometimes. It's about whether or not we are a community, whether we Defend Each Other or not, and how we can work together. All of us. Drop on by v:User talk:Abd sometime, it's my home wiki now. It's the only WMF wiki where truly original work is not only allowed, but invited. As with any real university. We don't have "articles" to fight over, we have "resources," and the more resources, the better. Of course, there is work in organizing them so that they are accessible and usable and useful. Plenty to do! --Abd 13:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

SRCU[edit]

I have redone the Brox@ltwiki checkuser. FYI. fr33kman 01:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And yes, you helped a great deal. fr33kman 06:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I was, early on, impressed strongly by meatball:DefendEachOther. --Abd 07:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
You are welcome. My attitude is to seek out the facts. I am also willing to review any action taken by anyone if I have the technical ability to do so; just as I am ready to be reviewed at any time. A review was requested, so I did it. fr33kman 18:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

My apologies if I reacted to harsh. Sometimes when I get pushed in a camp I didn't want to be in I can start reacting somewhat emotional instead of rational. Sorry... Wkr, Fontes 16:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem, Fontes, I don't take it personally. I have refactored what I wrote about your comments. If anything isn't right, please let me know, I'll fix it. I do not want to misrepresent anyone's position, ever.
Your comment about arguments as distinct from where the person comes from is generally true. However, there can be exceptions, and this might be one. It could also be a coincidence. Nevertheless, I believed it was important to note the "gap" between comments coming from nlwiki users and comments from others, because some closers would not notice, they will look at two things: the arguments and the numbers. Obviously, where people come from is not very relevant to arguments, as such; however, it can be relevant to numbers. That's a political reality.
You know, until I suspected a possible problem and checked, I had no idea that it was all but one user from nl.wiki. I thought I'd find more who were opposed to unblock. The essential problem most were claiming was "user has been given plenty of chances." That would refer to what happened on nl.wiki, I suspect. It makes no sense about meta behavior.
Thanks. --Abd 16:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussions on request pages[edit]

Would you please avoid of starting discussions on steward request pages? Those are monitored by too much people and also bots. We have talk pages instead. Pings on 50 people on IRC for nothing is not needed and kind boring. Those pages are only for requests. Thanks. --WizardOfOz talk 20:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll work on that. Is it legitimate to oppose a request?
Some steward pages and requests are really open and shut, or should be, like Permissions, but I'm seeing (for a long time) a few global locks and checkuser and other requests where time-consuming investigation, and reporting, is needed.
I've proposed, elsewhere, that request pages like that be pure requests, no discussion allowed. What a steward would do, then, would be "take the case," and allow discussion on their user Talk page. They might take an initial, ad-hoc action, but then would be open to review.
Global locks, though, are seriously disruptive, sometimes. They would prevent a user from coming to meta and defending. Short IP blocks, fine. Registered user locks, where there is any possible room for doubt, no, those should actually be discussed first.
Thanks for expressing your concern. --Abd 20:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It´s enough to make a short comment if you disagree and put a link to the talk page where this could be discussed. There is no need to transfer the discussions all across the meta, but the request page should be only for requests. --WizardOfOz talk 20:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure. Wouldn't something on an attached Talk page also trigger watchlists, though? Maybe not IRC.
Another point. You didn't point to a specific request page. From the timing, though, I'd assume you were referring to [8]. My initial opposition there was relatively brief. It became longer when Trijnstel and other users argued with my comment. The real problem here would be delay in response, for once a steward had acted, as per what I've done before, I'd indeed have been likely to comment only on the Talk page, unless I was directly asking for a reversal. There is still no steward response there, but Trijnstel withdrew it. I do regret filing that objection, if it's true that a block would likely have been 24 hours. I would not bother a steward for any 24 hour anything. If I'd known that, I'd have supported the block, actually.
Just so it's clear, I'm accepting your advice, I just have some continued questions. Thanks. --Abd 22:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for doing this, I forgot about that. :) Mathonius 23:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem, you are welcome, I'm just trying to help tidy up. When the requests are in date order, it's easier to see what's really old, it helps with cleanup. I also date requests where users don't sign and timestamp them, part of the same effort. --Abd 23:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Slaps head! And then I missed the section header moving your first request, and another user then filed a request for the same user, leading you to remove yours as duplicated. But yours was actually first..... I'd merely made it not so visible with the header in the wrong place! --Abd 00:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. The request has been granted and that's what really matters, isn't it? ;) Mathonius 01:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
That's not quite all that matters. Community matters. Thanks. --Abd 01:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I never said that's all that matters and I actually agree with you: community matters. I don't see why that would be a topic of discussion. Mathonius 01:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem, Mathonius, and I'm glad you agree. It's simply worth mentioning. Sometimes some people do seem to think that the "product" is all that matters, but people are important. Yes, as far as the page is concerned, it's the result that counts. However, you came here to thank me, and I'm appreciating that. Thanks again. --Abd 01:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hi Abd, you seem to know Meta policies much better than I do, so I'd like to ask you a question please. Somebody suggested I could rise my concerns about Gwen Gale here. It states "It can also be used for unresolved conflicts or other issues in regards to other Wikimedia projects if discussion on the relevant project has not been successful." This problem was not discussed on English wiki, but because I am blocked on English wiki, I cannot rise that question there. Requesting arbitration via email is not a good idea either. I'd rather have everything in an open. IMO my concerns are a serious matter that should be brought to the attention of the community somehow. Any advise you could give me how to proceed will be appreciated. Thanks.--Mbz1 17:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to raise an issue about alleged misbehavior on enwiki, I'd suggest requesting that you be unblocked there. As you were blocked at your own request, it would probably receive favorable consideration -- unless you were blocked while "under a cloud."
I have not verified your claims in the edits you made here. From reading them, though, if what you reported wasn't biased or cherry-picked, you do have a legitimate concern. However, local politics matter. I raised legitimate concerns on enwiki, those concerns were later validated, and I was still banned as a result. (By ArbComm, my later "community ban" was simply fallout, when I realized that every action of mine was being examined by very hostile eyes, and I withdrew cooperation, I expected that later ban, and even welcomed it. Long story.)
I frequently see users show up at meta complaining about local problems. They have been abruptly banned, perhaps, sometimes by administrators who obviously had an axe to grind. The answer is always, "We can't help you there. Follow local process." Subtext: if you can't get support from any unblocked users there, it's hopeless and a waste of time.
The comment you quote from the local RfC page, however, is misleading and misapplied. That primarily applies to small projects, almost certainly, not to projects with an arbitration committee. Further, notice that this is "if discussion on the relevant project has not been successful." I did not see you point to such a discussion.
I can tell you this: you will not get mileage on this at meta. You might be blocked, it happens sometimes if you disruptively argue with established users at Wikipedia. Especially arbitrators. They have a lot of friends!
In the past, some users attempted to use Wikiversity to criticize Wikipedia administrators. That ended rather badly. "Wiki science" can be studied on Wikiversity, original research is allowed, but if this crosses into the criticism of individual users on another project, it's generally beyond the pale.
Properly, if a Wikipedia administrator has misbehaved in some way, the forum for addressing it would be following w:WP:DR on Wikipedia, followed by RfC there if that doesn't produce satisfaction, following the RfC rules -- which require a second user to certify the RfC -- followed by an RfAr if the RfC doesn't produce consensus. I followed that process, myself, successfully. Twice. To do this yourself, though, would require getting unblocked, and it is, I'll tell you, a lot of work for not a lot of satisfaction.
Good luck. --Abd 18:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for taking time to respond. It is all seems too complicated.
BTW you've warned Xeno and me :-) Could you please consider warning Gwen Gale too over this "rv trolling" edit summary for my first post?--Mbz1 18:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
No. Gwen Gale wasn't particularly civil there, but she has the right. You were warned because you sort-of insisted (but not after a specific request to stop, or I'd have taken this to RFH myself), and Xeno because Xeno made a big fuss over a small thing.
It is not so complicated. Meta is for WMF wiki coordination and cooperation, including steward access. Yes, enwiki DR process is complicated, sometimes, but that's enwiki's problem. Not ours, here. Now, please stop pushing anything that looks like enwiki conflict here. Entirely. Okay? --Abd 18:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

RFH page[edit]

My original comment, copied from User talk:Theo10011.

  • With [9], you signed a request on the RFH page as "The Management," omitting your own signature. I took it as, more or less, a joke. But now you really seem to be asserting that non-admins are not welcome to comment and participate in possible consensus formation, recognition, and discussion on the RFH page.
  • If you'll look at this comment on Talk:RFH, you'll see that I'd support some kind of sensible restriction, but that is not the present practice, and we have piles of users who are not admins here commenting on requests if they are controversial. Until that changes, I see no instructions, guidelines, or policies supporting what you are asserting. If non-admins should not comment on RFH, that should be stated in the page instructions. Is that what you want?
  • The RFH page is for requests to admins, and what I most recently posted there, which you opposed, has often been exactly that: a request for an admin to act, specifically a closure by an uninvolved administrator. Can you clarify what you object to? Do you believe that you have a superior right, as an administrator, to discuss requests on that page? --Abd 23:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your comment. I did mean the management as a joke and that is exactly how it should be viewed and nothing more. Before the issue with the Abigor and Ottava, that page was commented primarily by admins and requests were either marked as done or not done. That is how I perceived it for all the time I have been an admin. Recently, that page has turned into several collections of RfC and issues that need to be discussed elsewhere, and then brought there after consensus. I have stated that multiple times, there are pending requests that are open for days now. When you feel there is a consensus on an RfC regarding those issues, please feel free to post the conclusion for someone to carry out on RFH, that should be the ideal way. And unlike RFH, each and every user would be on equal standing and the right place to comment on an RfC. I did not however imply that comments by non-admins are not welcome, they most certainly are. What is not welcomed is users who are semi-active in the community guiding admins on what blocking rules they should follow without being very active in the past or serving as admins themselves. Our community might be small, but imagine if I go and comment to other admins on another project that "perhaps it's time you learn more about how we make decisions". You already accused me and WizardOfOz of not being neutral twice on that page, calling his stand as "WOO's personal conditions were excessive." Guiding us about "checkuser revisionism" and the lack of blocking "policy" on Meta doesn't help this outlook either. That is what I objected to, and found inappropriate. By all means, feel free to start an RfC about either issue, I will not object. Regards. Theo10011 23:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Theo. Glad to know it was a joke. However, do you think that I'm a user who is "semi-active in the community"? I'm highly active, both here and on Wikiversity (where I do most of my work).
Meta is not just another project. It is the coordinating project for the entire WMF family, and, as such, it normally remains very open and responsive to all WMF users. Apparently, you are averse to receiving "guidance" from me. That's okay, but would you prefer to receive guidance through an RfC? Is this what you are asking for? Have I mistaken your position? Do you think that my comment was uncivil? You are using language like "accused." To say that someone is involved isn't an "accusation" because being involved is not a crime. Do you know what I meant by "checkuser revisionism"?
Do you think that "non-admins" should not advise the administrative community? Theo, who is, indeed, The Management?
Checkusers, back then, issued an opinion. "Checkuser revisionism" would involve them going back and looking again, and perhaps coming up with a different opinion. But we may be beyond the checkuser data retention window, I'm not sure.
Further, it is likely that the checkuser data, from what I've seen, was quite positive. Which is a bit short of "certain." No matter what. User agent data can be faked, and, I suspect, the IP was an open proxy. Anyone could have used it. So, nothing to revise! And, if it actually was Abigor, that would represent a transient offense, even if an egregious one. Are you aware that I supported the block at the time, as did some others who have now supported or at least not opposed unblock?
What you opposed, clearly, was my proposal that the Ottava discussion be closed with no action. Are you actually opposed to closing that discussion? You want to keep it open (i.e., not closed)? You think we need more comments? You made claims about my position as being just my own opinion, but I documented the !voting, and your claims are preposterous. Why are you doing this? --Abd 00:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi again, I am not sure if you are semi-active or not. The intention was, your home wiki or your most active wiki, is not Meta. Second, I am not sure how you know about Checkuser info from "back then" but I have never held CU right, I am not sure if you have either. The crux of my issue here is, being told about admin policy, CU info, and so on from someone else while painting other admins in one stroke . What I didn't like were the dozen questions you asked (you can count above yourself), that is what I called accusative. I suggested an RfC multiple times as the right location for the discussion on the RFH page, ideally, consensus should be sought there and then asked to be enacted on the RFH page. Asking me if I "would you prefer to receive guidance with an RfC" isn't exactly my idea of Good faith, people can and will disagree with you, you are free to oppose however you like, as am I. You also might want to read my comment, I didn't oppose closure of the request/discussion, I opposed withdrawal of my position which I stand by. If it is closed by another admin since I voted and commented on it extensively, my position should remain there, same as everyone who disagreed/agreed on Abigor's request. Revisionism is not likely to change anything. Regards. Theo10011 00:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I've never held checkuser right on a WMF wiki. I have in a MediaWiki installation elsewhere. And I've reviewed a lot of checkuser data, when it's been revealed. I do know what's involved, generally. And I was very familiar with the Abigor case, because I became involved assisting Abigor in an attempt for him to obtain the actual checkuser data, which, contrary to what some seem to have thought, could have been disclosed to him, by policy. Theo, I'll say this again: I know what I'm talking about, and it appears that you don't. That's not a sin, unless you resist advice, and it sure looks like you are.
  • You have 6183 edits, WMF-wide. You are admin only on meta, as a result of [10]. There, the concern was raised about your lack of experience as a WMF content wiki sysop. I'll now concur with that concern, you've made many comments that show a lack of familiarity with general wiki process and traditions. You have 1579 edits at meta.
  • By way of comparison, I have 22,511 edits WMF-wide, of which 7046 are on Wikiversity, where I'm a sysop. But this doesn't reveal the full story, because my special interest was wiki structure and process, and that predates my registration on Wikipedia in 2005. I don't know whether or not this will mean anything to you, but I'm 67 years old, with extensive experience with many different consensus organizations. I have a fairly good idea of what works and what doesn't work, and I can warn you that if you continue with your head in the sand, refusing to listen to those with more experience than you, you won't do well. I took two cases to the Wikipedia Arbitration committee, both times realizing my goal, which was addressing administrative abuse, which I consider does great harm. Fortunately, it's the exception rather than the rule.
  • True, I asked a lot of questions, here on my user page. This is only about you, Theo, not about "other admins." I don't think you are speaking for them. Nobody else came here to argue this. Of course, any other admin is welcome to disagree with me on that!
  • I'd suggest that if you don't "like" me asking questions about what you post on my user talk page, you stay away from it.
  • The tone here is greatly improved, but your position is still puzzling.
  • You "opposed withdrawal of your position," you claim, but the "position" that you are then sustaining is a templated opposition to a proposal to close with no action, and, contrary to what you state above, closure -- not some ban -- is exactly what you objected to. I proposed closure, and you are the only Oppose so far. If you aren't opposed to closure, why did you add that Oppose template underneath a proposal to close? (Now I see that Guido has popped in with an incoherent Oppose also, seeming to believe that Support would mean a ban. That's what I mean by "clueless" users popping in to comment.)
  • And if you "have no objection with other people closing," then why did you Oppose, and why did you object to my requesting you withdraw that? (by striking, probably.) In any case, you are not obligated to answer these questions. Not here, anyway.
  • "Revisionism is not likely to change anything." That was my point, wasn't it?
  • I'm finding your position incoherent and inconsistent. Are you opposed to closing (as shows on the face) or not (as shows within your collapse)? Do you have any clear requests of me? Thanks. --Abd 02:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This is very unproductive, more so than the actual issue. I would like to point out, you left a message on my page first here. Thank you for pointing out how many edits I have, and how experienced you are. I thoroughly enjoyed your patronizing and condescending tone. I would request you to please refrain from leaving any more comments on my talk page to avoid any further acrimony. I have no interest in arguing this further, and I fear I might not be as cordial as I have been so far, if I pursue this line of questioning. Theo10011 09:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I did indeed make a comment on your user page. I'd have expected normal response to be there, if you were going to respond, not here. However, it's what you chose. I see nothing in your response here that actually explains your position. Outwardly, an "oppose" template shows.[11] In collapse, you state you are not opposed. Which is it? What, precisely, are you opposed to? --Abd 20:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop harassing me[edit]

Abd, STOP HARASSING ME Guido den Broeder 09:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Guido is invited to link to specific edits which he considers harassment, so that I may respond, and, as well, so that, if they were not appropriate, I can avoid the behavior in the future. It's better that I don't guess. Otherwise, I'd suggest that the user actually retire, as he's claimed to do (before, as well). I see no sign that this user is here to work on WMF projects, and his meta editing has been, it appears, about payback and revenge -- or what he thinks of as helping a friend, no matter what the actual effect. global contributions meta block log. /Stand Heat => /Kitchen. --Abd 20:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Block[edit]

Before I request unblock, I'd appreciate a pointer to an edit or edits alleged as harassment. Otherwise there is no behavior to apologize for or correct. Thanks. --Abd 22:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I had not been notified of [12]. I do wish to be unblocked. I don't have time to prepare a formal unblock request with a template.

I'll be busy for a few days, meanwhile, I see a laundry lists of complaints from a surprising source. I'm accused, as the first charge, of "Accusation of defamation," but this is what the diff shows, from User talk:Abigor: "If you were not the vandal user, you have possibly been defamed, or someone has effectively impersonated you, you have a critical interest in that data. So one step at a time."

That is not an accusation of defamation. It is a conditional statement that, if Abigor is not the vandal, he may have been defamed. That does not mean that the one uttering the libel is guilty of anything, because the utterance may be blameless, for various reasons. But the effect, if the checkuser ID was false, is defamation, a damage to his reputation.

Nor does the diff show, at the bottom, an accusation of "privacy violations." It actually states the opposite, that there was a revelation of what is ordinarily protected by privacy policy, but that this was justified by necessity. I'm afraid that the user doesn't understand my English text.

I don't have time to examine the rest, but central here should be that there was no warning, no discussion of any specific alleged offense, and what appears to be a steward upset that I'd asked him for evidence of what he'd claimed about me, and he'd declined to provide anything, on my user page, so I essentially said, "suit yourself, good luck," and then he did provide a list, but on the request page, demanding I be blocked, while having rejected an effort to understand and possibly respond to what he was talking about. If the rest of it is like that first diff, he simply doesn't understand what's being written. --Abd 04:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

WizardOfOz recommends using Template:Unblock in order to receive the attention and opinions of other sysops. --Michaeldsuarez 23:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


×
Unblock request declined

This blocked user has had his or her unblock request reviewed by one or more administrators, who has/have reviewed and declined this request.
Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request reason: If I knew what I did, I could apologize. The evidence in the request that led to this block made no sense to me. However, regardless, I will respect the conditions of unblock set by any administrator, until and unless the community allows otherwise. I do have occasion to use meta process to support Wikiversity, where I'm an administrator, and to support global antispam and antivandalism efforts. Thanks. --Abd 21:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason: No new elements in favour of unblocking have emerged. --Vituzzu 21:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

English | español | français | magyar | italiano | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | 中文 | edit

I now notice that email was also blocked. Why? No email abuse was alleged, this is very, very unusual. --Abd 21:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Email access has been restored, however, if someone has evidence of your having misused it then any admin has my blessing to restore it. Regards, fr33kman 04:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Responses to unblock discussion[edit]

Response to SB Johnny[edit]

[13] SB Johnny wrote:

  • As far as "conditions for unblocking" go, I would like to suggest that one condition be that he actually provides some evidence about what the English Wikiversity's community's opinion is before he endeavors to represent it. En.wv is a very small community, we seldom have communal interest in political issues on meta, and Abd's particular long-form style of debate makes it very time consuming for any of us to "fact-check" his representations of our interests. Thanks. --SB_Johnny talk 18:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not been "endeavoring" to "represent" Wikiversity here. I'm not authorized to do that, ordinarily. I've written here as a WMF user, concerned about global issues, and I've, for example, requested global response to vandalism, having handled it as a sysop on Wikiversity. If SB Johnny has some specific incident in mind, a pointer to it would be helpful. The evidence presented in the block request did not, as far as I know, have anything to do with "representing Wikiversity." I remain unclear as to what it did have to do with. I'd rather not guess! I do thank SB Johnny for pointing out that there has been no attempt to explain it. --Abd 20:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Response to Billinghurst[edit]

  • I don't know the detail of the block, though the two statements above do have a level of oppositeness. I can reflect that if Abd needs to have access to meta because nobody else in their community has or wishes to access meta, than maybe Abd needs to have a change of approach. Alternatively, the WV community needs to get better representation of their opinions to meta. Manners and consideration are self-regulation, where they are not self-regulated, then they will be regulated by other means. billinghurst sDrewth 02:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[14]

No example has been alleged where I abused access to meta, where there was a failure of "manners and consideration." Absent examples of my errors, I can only speculate on what behaviors led to the block. The evidence provided in the block request was not intelligible to me, nor do I see any sign that anyone else made sense of it; most of those who commented, like you, just gave opinions without investigation.

To speak directly to your point, that some set of users has been offended does not demonstrate that a user was reprehensibly offensive. There are positions and points of view that, if expressed, will offend some who hold different views, yet frank and open expression of views is essential to the formation of true consensus.

The proper question would be whether or not I was uncivil. If so, there should be substantial examples, particularly since the situation was used to justify an infinite block without email access, very unusual for meta. (Fr33kman fixed the email issue. Because of email, I can make necessary meta requests, I don't need meta unblock for personal agenda.) I was serving the WMF community, and an actual review of my record would show this. --Abd 17:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Response to Michaeldsuarez[edit]

[15] Thanks, Michael. I've realized that nobody is likely to notice the immediate occasion for the block request that was filed by a steward. It would be a discussion on User talk:MarcoAurelio which took place immediately preceding it, here: Your claim that I've been spreading misinformation. I see now that I was led, there, to conditionally question the steward's competence. That could be considered uncivil, though I'm seeing it happen routinely around here with no consequences. I was astonished to see that converted to an infinite block in a matter of a few minutes from request, given a clean block record and, as far as I know, no harassment of that steward, no prior incivility toward him. It seems he may disagree about that. --Abd 04:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Response to Raul654[edit]

[16]. Raul has an agenda from Wikipedia, he never forgets. As of now, his only contributions to meta all seek my ban, with similar evidence-free claims.[17]. Last year his entire contributions consisted of attempting to get Wikiversity shut down. That was a true waste of time, genuine disruption. More than this could be said, but I'd never bring this up if Raul654 didn't attack as he has. --Abd 18:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Response to Ottava Rima[edit]

[18]. Ottava Rima has become highly disruptive and tendentious, engaging many users in useless and often off-topic disputes, making it all personal. He was recently unblocked on condition he not continue prior incivility. He's worse, if anything, and most of it has nothing to do with me. Most of his effort is to get others blocked and banned, frequently with blatantly misleading arguments. Since I confronted his gross incivility on Wikiversity, which ultimately led to the loss of his sysop bit there, he's been on a vendetta against me, it can be seen by examining his Wikiversity contributions.

Before being tempted to trust what he's written, I suggest reviewing his meta contributions and his block log. It's obvious. On the positive side, Ottava does a lot of welcomes, it's a quick way to accumulate "positive contributions," but he doesn't exercise due discretion.[19][20] --Abd 19:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

See also Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima, which was never closed. --Abd 19:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Response to Vituzzu[edit]

[21].

  • X mark.svg Not done I don't see any new element since the last unblock request. --Vituzzu 20:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • What last unblock request? This is the first. I'm puzzled that an admin would close a discussion, obviously without investigation, without validation of evidence. On what basis? However, this is what happened with the block request. Declining, Vituzzu declines also above, with the unblock template. There is no "new element," because there never was validated evidence for the block, just opinions by users who were obviously offended by something, but only the complaining steward gave diffs, and those did not support the claims he made, the gap was blatant. If this stands, it's not a harm to me, for I can ask for whatever I need at meta by email, and I won't abuse that. But it is a harm to the WMF, for what this means is that criticism of stewards and meta administrators is prohibited. At least, in the absence of explanations, which were requested before the block request, and after it, here, and now by another on the admin request page, that's all I can assume. I'll wait to see if the meta community supports Vituzzu's close. If any admin believes that my answers here are disruptive, please warn me. Thanks. --Abd 21:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Summary[edit]

The behavior of others, and possible bias in the blocking discussion and admin closing, are not reasons to unblock me. I'm asking for unblock on the basis of

  • My meta contribution record, which shows extensive positive participation, in spite of possible misunderstandings and errors.
  • No evidence of ongoing harm from my behavior preceding the block. But, if an unblocking admin disagrees, then
  • My enforceable agreement to satisfy any conditions of unblock, at the discretion of the administrator, subject to review by the community. (I.e., I will follow set conditions until and unless the admin or the community decides those conditions are not necessary.)
  • My commitment to review and respond to any complaints about my behavior, regardless. As I am a WMF administrator, I consider that a basic responsibility.

I thank any administrator or steward taking the time to review this. --Abd 19:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

People willing to take the time to review blocks and bans are hard to come by, it would seem. "You have been blocked from editing Meta for infinite due to harassement. . . If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires." First of all, there is only one "e" in harassment. Second, how are you going to wait out an indefinite block? Sorry I can't help; I'm probably looked upon as being part of the anti-cabal (at best) at this point. Leucosticte (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Block on hr.wiki[edit]

I have gone over and over again repeatedly throughout the problem. There seems to be no real rational explanation for my block whatsoever. I have gone through along with a very significant number of other admins, both from the Croatian and other Wikipedias - the ending conclusions is always that there was no reason to block me.

However, my block has finally expired. I have followed your advice and decided not to press any major appeals over at the Wikimedia community. That would probably be counter-productive, as I do not to confront this group of admins gathered around Ex13, nor did I even know of this conflict that apparently exists or any of these numerous issues circulating Croatian Wikipedia for the past few years - all I want to do is to be left alone, to obey that Wikipedia's rules by the book and write articles on Serbian history and nothing else.

P. S. Administrator JureGrm had indeed wanted to achieve such an appearance - but he had made a mistake. The opinions of the two administrators were not untimely and they were not supposed to have been deleted. JureGrm had violated Wikipedia's rules when he de-listed the two supporting opinions, thus leaving only the two dissenting ones and in the end, achieving a negative result for my appeal. --SavoRastko 17:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope that my comments on User talk:SavoRastko were helpful. Good luck. One more piece of advice. If you want to work on hr.wiki, as it seems you do, then begin to help with the routine maintenance of the project, and rigorously respect consensus. If someone objects to what you do, stop immediately until and unless you have good community support. Build up your contribution history, outside your area of specialization. It can be a lot of work, but you will become a mainstay of the community, if you do it right. Again, good luck. Let me know how you do. I'm currently blocked here, little detail I haven't bothered to address yet. I'm an administrator on en.wikiversity. --Abd 21:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Abd,
It is no longer possible to pursue this precise course of action, because I have just been banned indefinitely from the Croatian Wikipedia by the blocking admin. --SavoRastko 16:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that. Normally, individual administrators do not have the power to "ban." They can block, and they can "block indefinitely." A "ban" usually refers to a community decision. In practice, it can be the same, if nobody will respond to an unblock request. I have no idea if there was legitimate justification for the block, but that you complained here about JureGrm indicates to me that you aren't looking at what would work, but at what doesn't work: complaints about administrators.
I don't have the time at the moment to look at what happened. If you did nothing oppositional, if you did what I suggested, though, it would be very unusual to be blocked again. If you were blocked without cause, there can be ways to handle the situation, but it can take patience. The reward of patience is patience.
One idea: go to beta wikiversity and develop educational resources in Croatian on topics of interest to you. Some users are able to return to their original home wiki after establishing a positive record on other wikis. Further, the wikiversities have different standards, you can actually discuss topics and you can do original research, if you can be cooperative. You could also develop resources in English on the English WikiversityGood luck. --Abd 00:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I cannot allow such blatant violation of Wikipedia Rules and Guidelines to go on - the case with me is perhaps one of the greatest examples of abuse in the Wikipedia. I have been instructed that I'd be doing a great favor to the Wikipedia if I protected its integrity by pushing through this problem. I have patience, that's not where the problem lies.

Is it allowed in Wikipedia?[edit]

To keep in the pages of wiki Administrator's personnel thesis? at http://sd.wikipedia.org ? Other problem is We call Computer as same in English, but admin forcibly used his word Ganpukar of Computer. I have proof that thousands of published books called it Computer not Ganpukar. If some one oppose him he started abusive language. That is the reason sd.wikipedia.org never got attraction to Sindhi community. Plz check record there. Other things are he locked CSS due to that on the same site there are lot of font styles appeared there. He is not able to set commonCSS or Monocss. We are in trouble to work in our local Sindhi language. I don't know where to say for this problem. Record history says all the situation there. I appeal plz warn him to follow en.wikipedia.org rules, other wise he will continue use his personnel details and personnel promoted articles there. Dear I am sorry If u r not right person to say all about this, Plz suggest me where I can raise this issue. My sd.wikipedia.org ID is same. His thesis is not a violetion? http://sd.wikipedia.org/wiki/ماحولياتي_انتظام_ڪاڻ_اُپُگِرَهِي_عَڪس_ضماءُ_۽_درجه_بنديءَ_جي_طريقن_جو_اَڀياس Alixafar 00:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You will need to address this at sd.wikipedia. It is absolutely not an issue for here; I could not help you here, anyway, because I'm currently blocked, I can only edit this Talk page or send email. --Abd 00:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

Unblock request granted

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.

Request reason: requesting review of need for block -- Abd (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Unblock reason: Block seems sufficiently long, and there is a modicum of community support. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This template should be archived normally.


English | español | français | italiano | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | 中文 | edit

I will respect conditions set by any unblocking administrator, unless those are superseded by community consent or another administrator willing to support unblock. --Abd (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Support; the guy has shown respect for the terms of his block by staying gone for almost a year now without socking, which to me suggests a willingness to play by the rules of the wiki. I want to collaborate on some meta projects with this user, so his unblocking would be helpful to me. Thanks, Leucosticte (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Support – Abd is intelligent and open-minded. I don't believe that blocking Abd was the right thing to do. Abd has been blocked for nearly a year now. He or she has been blocked for long enough. Leucosticte says that Abd hasn't violated his or her block. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The block said (Intimidating behaviour/harassment: Per 4th Pillar, legal threats, personal attacks, harassement, disturbing behavior in discussions, not assuming of good faith) I do hope that, with some reflection, that you can see your way to consider the effect of some of the previous behaviour has not been seen positively. Good luck with future contributions. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Congrats, Abd. Good to see you back. Well, perhaps it would be useful to transwiki this page over here, since it's an idea of possible interest for the whole wikisphere. Although maybe we should hash it out at RWWW first! Leucosticte (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians in Exile[edit]

Hi, I created Wikipedians in Exile. If you have any ideas for the agenda, feel free to add them. Thanks. Leucosticte (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Like, for what purpose? And why here? As it is, signing up would formally and openly associate two users, you and I. For various reasons, I'm not prepared to do that. So I won't be number two. I'm not even sure I want anything to do with WMF wikis, or even wikis in general, having identified "the problem" as being intrinsic to the "wiki" concept, not remediable without certain kinds of structural support, and the possibilities I know about were heavily interdicted, but I'm willing to leave that open. --Abd (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
We're already associated, since I publicly supporting your unblocking. But your "various reasons", being as nebulous as they are, I cannot address. It's okay, I'm used to being the lone dissident, although another member would add social proof. We must, after all, cater to the ever-popular argumentum ad populum!
Not all WMF wikis are bad. A notable example is MediaWiki.org, which creates the documentation upon which most of the other wikis you love depend, at least to some degree. One of the reasons I respected Diego Grez so much, even though he was a — can I say "power whore" here, about a user who no longer participates in the project, without seeming uncivil? — was that he was willing to even go so far as to write Javascript and extensions for the sake of earning additional hats. I don't care what the motive; anyone who makes productive contributions to the MediaWiki codebase is cool in my book. Leucosticte (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)