User talk:Mu301/Archive 2017
| You are examining an archive of past discussions for transparent review by inquisitive participants.
Please ask questions and share your thoughts on the current discussion page.
Thanks and a request
Thanks for this on the cold fusion RfD.
I added some comments after you posted that, not noticing your request. I have reverted myself. If you have time, please look at that and revert back in anything that looks okay, or let me know I can do it. -- or close the RfD as requested without prejudice, meaning it could be refiled later (presumably following your request). Otherwise it is likely to continue to attract more mess. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I just realized why you thought that study page was "checkuser-like." It's because the information was compiled -- copy-pasted -- from actual checkuser requests, mostly on Wikipedia, and so users are listed with the checkuser template. That's all. Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Can you give a specific example of any such recent "case studies" or "investigations" here? If I have a problem with SPAs appearing, may I request custodian attention on the page for that? May such requests document what I consider the problem? With an RfD, if I discover clear evidence of canvassing, may I disclose that?
ːAs to the "legitimate requests," is there any documentation of this, or is this a star chamber where I am sanctioned with no knowledge of who accused me, what I was accused of, and opportunity to respond. In any case, I have not been creating such studies on Wikiversity, the one that you found that you deleted had been blanked, merely to avoid attack on it here, which was clearly causing disruption, and it was moved to meta, because it was about cross-wiki LTA activity. I will, nevertheless, exercise extreme caution. I will look at the Review Board, and at Community Review as well. I will no longer be working to build content on Wikiversity, pending, I have better places to work in any case. Please think about making Wikiversity safe for scholars, from attack by those who come from outside. That is what that study here was about, SPA disruption, a long-term problem. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- We're not exactly inundated with SPAs or any other "threat" that urgently requires your assistance. If you see cross-wiki activity you can try posting at meta. Otherwise we have plenty of folks here with the tools and the trust of the community to handle whatever scarce inappropriate activity that occurs. Please take a break from this sort of activity here. This really gets to the core of my concern: you are using militaristic language like "from attack by those who come from outside" which creates an adversarial us against them environment. You literally categorize WMF participants as Friends and Enemies. These are not isolated instances. This permeates a lot of your on-wiki interactions and it is detrimental to a collegial learning environment.
- I'm going to let your w:Star Chamber snark slide by without a brief incivility block despite the fact that the phrase is "synonymous with social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the power it wielded." You've been around long enough to know that admins are sometimes privy to sensitive personal information that could have real world consequences and that we are required by WMF policy to respect confidentiality where it is warranted. I will however share one quote from a private exchange: "Regarding Abd at Wikiversity... the participation his behavior draws certainly have a net negative effect on my experience." Please note that this is not from an anon or someone who is more active at Wikipedia. This is from a productive member of our local community. The implications of this statement trouble me more than any specific edit that you have made. People are our most valuable learning resource at Wikiversity. The consequences of your behavior are that participants are discouraged from contributing here. --mikeu talk 23:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- I asked if it was a star chamber. Thanks for the response, however, we used to require a community review for sanctions, apparently that's gone and sanctions are issued based on private conversations instead of community discussion. As an admin you may certainly warn me, though I would have appreciated more specifics. Was the RCA filing a problem? Seems to me that you think it was. I have been blocked before here, one time for asking for custodian assistance because of problems from another user. I was blocked for requesting review (and the other user was also blocked. That is called "shooting the messenger." Ultimate sane response. Leave.
- I have been following cross-wiki discussions and there is indeed an attack on Wikiversity. That's been going on for a long time, mostly it sits in the background. Look at the comments in the RfD! They are matched by comments elsewhere, even more blatant.
- You have not understood the "Friends and Enemies" comment I made on that meta page. That refers to people who are friends or enemies of the sock master. He uses their names in new accounts. That's all. I was not defining any of those people -- and I'm one of them, he has used my name -- as friends and enemies of me or the wiki and inclusion in that list was only that those names are used. Mostly he uses the names of people who are probably enemies, but sometimes maybe friends, so I did not classify them. They are people he interacted with. You have jumped to conclusions.
This lecture focuses on the real fringe sciences, not on alleged 'fringe science'. I have many publications in real science journals that have included the use of various types of physical fringes. If the title is causing someone concern, there are two alternatives: (1) its name can be changed to Sciences/Fringes or (2) Physics/Fringes. Let me know! Either alternative is fine with me! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)