User talk:Mu301/Archive 2010

Active discussions

Custodianship

Hi Mike. Thanks for mentoring. My probationary period is over and there's a vote on me for full custodianship. --AFriedman (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks man

Hi, well im pretty much a newbie here, not to mention that Im from Costa Rica so my english is not the best, but I'll try. Im a software engineer so maybe I try contributing in that topic. --Keylor 14:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Account rename

After usurpation target account has been renamed to the Jackie (usurped), but current account don't rename to the Jackie. I don't want re-create new local account Jackie for my SUL - rename, please, my current Jackie-ru-ru-new to the Jackie. — Jackie-ru-ru-new 06:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

tools

ping --Gbaor 18:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity Nomic - Call for judgement

Hi! I entered as a player in the Nomic, and then when I saw the possibility there did a rather boring bid for winning. I won't say I won't be happiest if it is judged as valid, and I actually think it looks legit (if perhaps, a bit boring), but I'm also interested to see how it will be handled - and however it goes, perhaps it turns out it was what was needed to get the game going? So, will you take a look and comment at Talk:Nomic#I can haz WIN?? I'll also post on User:Kennercat's talk page. Anyone else who should be contacted? Ever wonder 11:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

SUL Merge

Please kindly check Wikiversity:Changing_username#Naz_.E2.86.92_Nazar. Thanks! -- Naz 12:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Need some help with SUL

Ummmm could you please take a look at Wikiversity:Changing_username#SUL_for_User:Anshul? Would really appreciate the help. 120.138.117.230 13:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC) (Anshul)

Tools

Hi Mike. There are some interesting things going on here lately, some of them not so good. If you don't mind, please restore my tools, which I had relinquished a while ago thinking that I would not want to use them again. Things are a bit out of balance, and I'd like to perform a few actions in the interests of restoring that balance. I'll probably not keep them for more than a month or so, but we'll see. --SB_Johnny talk 23:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've undone your voluntary relinquishment of the tools. Good luck with the mop! --mikeu talk 23:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
This is not good Mikeu. We have a procedure. Do you know why? Why you should be that only one who say, this user I like so he/she can take back his rights, while this user I dont like... It is up to community if they want such a custodian or not--Juan de Vojníkov 06:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll figure out what to do with them tomorrow... farm chores to do! --SB_Johnny talk 23:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't a voluntary relinquishment. He was regranted it by whim of Jimbo after SB Johnny promised to stop the drama. Instead, SB Johnny redid the drama. We do not have a policy stating that those who give it up for any reason can be granted the tools upon request regardless. Mike, it is also troubling that you would do this without discussion especially without having any active role in this community for a while. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Did SB Johnny retire amidst a drama? If not, he can request the tools back whenever he want(ed). Diego Grez 00:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
No. He cannot. That is Wikipedia. We are not Wikipedia. But he did retire amongst drama, drama he created when he decided to wheel war and openly attack the Foundation through his use of ops that made it necessary to remove his ops. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
This argument has been made by Ottava and answered by me elsewhere. He didn't listen. The history is clear. SB_Johhny did "wheel-war" (by a special definition, perhaps not realizing that it wasn't really proper under the circumstances) with Jimbo. Jimbo did remove the tools. But Jimbo then restored them. There was no further hazard to the tools, no process filed here or on meta, no complaint here or on meta that was likely to result in process, therefore no "cloud." Basically, the cloud had passed and the sun had come out. Therefore no reason not to restore the tools. The request and restoration was proper. It is not true that he "attack[ed] the Foundation." But even if he did, that would be completely irrelevant. The Foundation representative, Jimbo, was content to leave the tools in place, appears to have no beef with SBJ. SBJ apparently felt that, at that time, he could not continue, so he went to meta and resigned the tools. It is traditional under those circumstances, volutary resignation, to restore them on request, I have never seen an exception, even with some pretty shaky cases. The restoration of tools leaves the case as it would have been if the sysop simply went away for a while. No drama. No debate.
Ottava, as you know, Mike cannot remove the tools. If you believe there has been some violation here, you are free to go to meta and request removal. I do not recommend it at all, you are already in quite enough hot water. --Abd 01:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Jimbo restored based on a promise to end the drama. SB Johnny gave them up in order to make the ultimate point, thus breaking his promise to Jimbo. There was a strong cloud. Regardless, we are not Wikipedia and we do not have the "not under cloud" allowance to give custodianship back. Crats here can only act under clear consensus. P.S., if you paid attention I already went to those who can remove the status and requested it. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Abd - why can't Mike remove tools from other accounts here? Is there no process for requesting such action?
Ottava - I hope you don't mean your comment on my talk page. Even if it were appropriate for a steward to get involved, it would not be appropriate for me as I edit here and participate in the community. But this discussion is the sort of matter that can and should be resolved here.
SBJ - re: "a few actions in the interests of restoring that balance." -- hopefully only actions supported by community consensus. :-) SJ+> 02:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Within policy, and with prior consensus, of course :-). I think the most important and meaningful "action" was just taking up the tools again, tbh... there's been a bit too much of the "custodians are in charge" mentality lately, so having an old-school "no big deal" guy returning to the flock (tools and all) seems to have already shifted the dynamic a bit.
I think it's also just a very awkward position for Jtniell to be the only "active" 'crat. Jtniell took a huge leap of faith a couple years ago and invited his students and assistants to come here and share in the creation of and participation in a true OER effort. As the "man in power", he's also been the focus of what must be some rather uncomfortable attention finding himself in the middle of a drama he did not create or contribute to. He's starting a new semester, with new students and new assistants, and if I were him I'd be rather uncomfortable. Wouldn't you?
Good to see you here, of course. Could you maybe pop in once a day or so for a while? Wikiversity needs at least one reality check per day, and you seem like you have the skills to provide that :-). --SB_Johnny talk 03:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Bureaucrats here cannot lift a bit, they can only promote, not demote, if I understand the restrictions correctly. To remove a custodian bit or a bureaucrat bit takes a steward. It's looking like Ottava is trying to get stewards to act (I haven't looked) without an attempt to find local consensus, which I understand would only happen in some kind of emergency situation, and there is no emergency. Yeah, I'm a little concerned about that comment from SBJ, but I'd suggest taking it straight. I see that SBJ is seeking community consensus on the one issue that's come up, explicitly. Thanks for your concern, Sj. --Abd 02:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I was told by two Stewards to mention it to other Stewards. You were easier to contact over talk page than over IRC. More of a "heads up". Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The process for removing a bit is that a custodian can voluntarily resign or the community can demonstrate consensus and make a request at meta. In either case it is only a steward who has the technical means to flip the bit off, but they will only do it in one of the two cases listed above or due to an extreme emergency. When I go to the Special:UserRights page the check boxes for custodian or crat are grayed out under a column heading titled "Groups you cannot change."

This is not the first time that this has come up. See [1] and [2]. At no point did anyone say "Whoah, mike, what are you doing?" If someone gains the trust of the community and then chooses to resign or take a break I don't see any reason to not reinstate at their request. It would be very different if someone had the tools removed through a community decision. But there never was any community discussion on removing the bits from SBJ. The removal and reinstatement were done unilaterally by Jimbo Wales and his actions did not reflect the wishes of the community. --mikeu talk 14:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I wish you were on IRC at the time because then you would have seen that SB Johnny's actions did not have the support of the community and that Jimbo's actions did have quite a bit of support. SB Johnny's approach caused a lot of headaches and unnecessary drama that took weeks to clean up. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
We can see some of the problem revealed here. Ottava and a few friends had a problem with SBJ's action, others not, but perhaps the latter were not on IRC. (However, I've written a policy proposal that would prohibit what SBJ did, as to the future.)
I commented in a few places during that time, here and on meta, and I've never used the WV IRC, and many of us don't use it. ::SB_Johnny and some users had a problem with Jimbo's action, and others did not. From what I can see, the majority of users who commented felt it was inappropriate. Ironically, I don't necessarily agree.
Ottava argues that SB_Johnny "caused" a lot of problems. That's irrelevant, not to mention not true. The basic problem was that Jimbo intervened rather clumsily, and not just with SBJ, and these interventions, it must be remembered, were part of what led to his resignation of some of his Founder tools. That was under a cloud, by the way, because at that point the !vote was about 4:1, with roughly 500 comments, as I recall, to remove the founder bit. And I didn't and don't necessarily agree with that removal, I'm just pointing out that there was a whole lot going on besides SBJ. What Mu301 has written is simply correct. And we can see it in the current consensus. What happened on IRC is irrelevant, and for good reason. Thanks, Mike.
"Resignation under a cloud" has never been taken to mean "Some users didn't like what the sysop or 'crat did." It means actual process under way, or removal by complaint. I.e., someone complains to a steward, and, before the steward responds, the user resigns the tools. Indeed, Ottava, with no evidence, has elsewhere described this situation that way, "You can't fire me, I quit!" Under those conditions, a steward might consider the situation much more carefully, as would a 'crat. That is not at all what happened. --Abd 19:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
We aren't Wikipedia. There is no "under a cloud" distinction here. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
We are not Wikipedia. We are not Wikipedia. We are not Wikipedia. Now. There is an "under a cloud" distinction here because it is common sense and 'crats will follow it unless they have a damn good reason not to. And if you don't like that, Ottava, propose policy to the contrary, or propose policy that provides that custodians and 'crats cannot do anything that they are not specifically allowed to do by policy. I don't recommend that. At all. Do you? --Abd 13:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Crats can only act through community consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikiversity:Bureaucratship is a proposed policy. Claiming that a Bureaucrat may only use tools after a community consensus is established is denying common practice. The exception, promotion discussions, is being mistaken for the general rule. In fact, in almost all actions, the 'crat is exercising discretion, and some actions are done with no discussion at all, beyond, typically, a request and a response. Beware of attachment to outcome, beware of claiming that reality is this or that because it suits what you want at the moment. Absolutely, a 'crat is obligated to respect consensus, and to avoid acting against consensus, that's true. But a 'crat may act in expectation of consensus, in advance of an explicit formation, and the rules are really the same for custodians. As the proposed policy states. --Abd 00:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Call for bureaucrats

FYI - Call for bureaucrats. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Changing username

Hi, I used to be AFriedman and have submitted a username change request. May I please have my custodian privileges moved to my new primary account, User:La comadreja? Thanks, La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Done Sample Edit

Hi there! As requested, I have completed a sample edit with my bot. See Wikiversity:Bots/Status. Sorry for the delay, I could swear I had the page watchlisted, but apparently I did not. - EdoDodo talk 19:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Violation of community trust

Mikeu, you closed the CR section when this motion was passing. That motion shuts down all previous votes and declares them as void. The CR procedures also do not allow voting to happen, especially when voting preceded discussion and was done through canvassing people who were not part of the community.

The review was also closed in four days, which directly defies all norms.

This is an egregious violation, and compounded by your readding SB Johnny's sysops and Crat status without community consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Community Review/Mikeu

Wikiversity:Community Review/Mikeu. There will be more added, but I will be consulting with JWS and Moulton about abuses relating to your use of ops regarding them and lacking consensus to do so. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Mike, the CR filed, cited above, was filed prematurely and, in my view, abusively. I do not believe that there are any issues raised by Ottava there that require a response from you in the CR, but, of course any other user might think differently and request that you respond. I was a bit concerned, and I expressed it there, about the following:
  • The close with less than the seven days provided in custodian policy for desysopping. I do believe that in an emergency, where there is present and ongoing damage, a 'crat may request desysopping at any time, even without discussion, so this might be moot, but you did not declare such an emergency, i.e., a need to act more quickly than the 7 day period, so you might possibly comment on this.
  • You may also have felt that the conclusion was obvious, and that some damage would result from the discussion staying open. Again, if this were explicitly stated, then it might help.
  • Or, you forgot about the 7-day period, in which case an "oops!" might be in order. However, I don't believe that harm is done by the error, the conclusion was forgone, and an "oops!" would simply avoid establishing a precedent. Much of the "support" discussion may have shut down when Ottava appeared to "resign," but then oppose !votes started appearing from "new users," so it's a bit of a mess, complicated with possible canvassing -- which does not need to be decided -- and the misdirection, intended or not, of a false resignation. Nobody wanted to kick a man while he was down.
Reviewing your closing statement, just now, I do feel that it was adequate, focusing on the basic issue, the widespread loss of confidence by long-term users, which sidesteps so many of the issues raised in objection. However, if you do wish to comment more thoroughly on your close, either here or in the CR, it might possibly help.
Your review and close with this unfortunate incident is appreciated. Thanks. --Abd 21:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
ping --mikeu talk 14:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Excellent. --Abd 15:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you made me smile

[3] (Cheering!)

(My WP topic ban would theoretically allow me to comment on your talk page there, but I'd rather not push it.)

The w:Cold fusion article process is totally crazy. It's claimed There are no reports from "secondary peer reviewed publications about the excess heat-helium correlation and x-rays". We cover the subject adequately. There are plenty of such reports, I won't list them here, but you can find heat/helium reports at Cold_fusion/Excess_heat_correlated_with_helium/Sources. I'm not expecting that you intervene in editing there, but it might help in understanding to know that the editor who made that claim has specifically removed at least one of these sources, so he knows they exist.

For a long time, the main library (by far) of by-permission preprints of most papers in the field, lenr-canr.org, was globally blacklisted, by request of one of the set of editors who have been sitting on the Wikipedia article, and the renewal of my topic ban on Wikipedia was based on my successful request at meta to lift that blacklisting. (I was allegedly too argumentative, though, in fact, it's quite obvious that if I hadn't been, the request would not have been granted. I was laying out the evidence, so I could then file a meta RfC if necessary. The blacklist admins knew that, and don't want an RfC, it would crimp their style, they are basically allowed to do Whatever They Please otherwise. I've worked on the blacklist problem for years, I know these admins and can sometimes cooperate with them....) Attempts to link to that library as an external link from w:Cold fusion, it clearly satisfies external link policy, were eventually removed (it was there for years), and an attempt to link to the Wikiversity resource was likewise recently reverted. "Self-published" was claimed -- which wouldn't be a reason for an EL! If, however, WV resources are "self-published", then every link on Wikipedia to another Wikipedia article would be to a "self-published" page. They were applying sourcing standards to external and inter-wiki links. Whatever it takes to keep it out.

It's very clear: there are editors on WP who do not want Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing and the ArbComm decision on fringe science to be implemented with cold fusion. The editor in question was topic banned on anything to do with fringe science in that decision, and Cold fusion is under discretionary sanctions as a result of my later case, but AE is useless if nobody is left who both understands the situation and is allowed to intervene.

I abandoned the effort and have not appealed the ban simply because it had all become too much work. One article isn't worth it. I can build resources on Wikiversity, and can work with skeptics, etc., without all the huge conflict. Some argument, for sure, but not the total waste of time that is Wikipedia process, slogging back and forth.

Anyway, thanks for making me smile. Ura Ursa may or may not be a sock, but these people will assert it and act on it without proof, they've done it many times, basing sock ID on POV, which then becomes a POV ban. Very similar to the whole Climate Change mess there, and some of the same people have been involved. --Abd 04:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Noob Question on Classification

Thank you for your welcome and invitation to ask questions, which I belatedly found today. Hope you don't regret it.

I'm working on a collection of lessons, currently linked from my user page (in the nav box at the bottom--the link is "What the Bible Says"), in a field where a similar resource already exists (Bible survey). My stuff is aimed at a secondary or adult education audience, and the existing material seems decidedly post-secondary. Is there room for both, and when the time comes how will I integrate my lessons?

Thanks again. Exfilia 18:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

How to Add Categories

Hi, I'm writing to you as a custodian (I think that's the term). I would like to add a category to the non-formal learning hierarchy, and possibly a sub-category. The major category would be 'careers and employment.' Obviously once I've done that I need to be able to mark articles so that they appear in the new category. Would you please point me in the right direction or towards someone else who might have the time to do so? Thanks! BillBell 18:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please ignore my request. I think I've found what I need. Thanks anyway. --BillBell 20:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for the welcome! BillBell 16:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Mu301/Archive 2010".