User talk:Abd

WikiIndex - wikis, wiki people, wiki software, and wiki ideas
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to WikiIndex! We hope you will contribute much and well. You will probably want to read the help pages. Again, welcome and have fun! Koavf (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Disclosure[edit]

I came to Wikiindex because I was pointed here by Leucosticte. However, I'm not his meat puppet. I do not approve of his description of Nathania, as an example. Leucosticte is, however, not a pedophile, has not been charged with any sex crimes, but is a radical libertarian who tends to take up highly unpopular causes, in the name of freedom, and then he will present what are often rational arguments to be considered. He then appears to be advocating the cause.

Those attacking him here will continue unless stopped. They are truly fanatic, and they will attack anyone who simply tries to stop the attacks. On RationalWiki, for simply pointing out fact, with evidence, I was told to rape my kids. And I do have children, lots of them. And I'm in regular contact with the Department of Children and Families. The extremists within the anti-pedophilia movement openly state that "pedophiles" should be castrated, violently tortured and killed, and so should anyone who supports or defends them.

Nathan is right about one thing. Hysteria about this issue is rampant. It is obvious that some deep buttons are being pushed.

The question here is whether or not wikis regarding issues and containing advocacy that is widely considered horrific, inhuman, repulsive, something to be stamped out, should be covered here. And if so, how should they be handled? I'm obviously new here; however, I have long been interested in and involved in the wiki movement, I started my first wiki about a dozen years ago, and was on-line with the W.E.L.L in the 1980s. I do not necessarily have easy answers.

Whatever I'm doing here, I will stop doing on the request of any established editor, and would then consult site administration before proceeding.

The vandals and trolls (who may think of themselves as "defending children," but they are not, they are acting out their own hysteria, berserking) will attack, and it can be predicted to increase. That could be stopped by banning Leucosticte, but that would set a very poor precedent. Some of Leucosticte's work here may be unnecessarily provocative. He can be regulated. He is likely to respect that.

It is unclear to what extent WikiIndex wants to allow site criticisms and hostile tagging. I'm watching and hopefully learning. --Abd (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, hello and a very warm welcome to WikiIndex. I hope you are able to stay here and add some input to our existing articles, or add any new wikis not already listed. :)
On to Nathan Larson, aka Leucosticte. Should anyone ask that Leucosticte be banned from WikiIndex, then I personally would fight very hard against that. I have not met Nathan in real life, my only contact with him is across the ether that is the wiki world of the interweb -- and I admit that some of the subject matter which Nathan writes about does make my eyebrows raise, being very much out of my comfort zone -- I accept, and thoroughly respect the extremely professional manner in which Nathan writes about those subject matters. It is clear that Nathan is highly educated, and it shows from the unbiased and empathetical manner he deals with controversial subjects. Nathan has been a very welcome contributor to WikiIndex - not only on the subject matter he has a personal interest, but very much also with the whole WikiIndex project, and I personally value his input here.
There is always space for new editors here on WikiIndex, and providing they be constructive in their editing, no matter how 'toe curling' the subject matter may be -- they will be warmly welcomed and be a valued asset to our community. Warmest regards :)) Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmin / 'Crattalk2HH 20:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hoof Hearted, thanks for the welcome. Nathan just reverted some deletion tags, [1], [2]. (To be fair, he also reverted one he had placed himself: [3]). The involved pages show the problem. Nathan, from his history, is likely to use Wikiindex to "expose" those he thinks have harmed him. And he wants to use Wikiindex to criticize other wikis, that is why he'd want to remove the opt out category. He may also be deliberately provocative, attracting what we saw here for a while, vandals and trolls going after him. The latter is a difficult problem, and I would most agree with your protective stance around that, but ... it is also an issue that he essentially trolls them.
The deletion tags show a structural issue. If there are no administrators regularly checking for deletion requests, granting where appropriate and removing where appropriate, there can be harmful content left on-wiki for a long time. It can cause damage. I placed those tags because I wanted to know if Wikiindex will tolerate pages that, without their permission, document individuals. The articles themselves were relatively harmless, in themselves, indeed I'd consider them utterly boring, except that they can later be edited to be not-so-harmless, once the principle is established that biographies of non-notable living persons are legitimate here. These are not wikis, they are not wiki founders or anything other relatively low-level administrators, MZMcbride being the administrator who last blocked him on the Meta-Wiki. I'm currently documenting, on that wiki, what is starting to look like a clear case of extended steward abuse. Should I bring that here? An article on the steward? That's a much higher level functionary than the administrators Nathan wrote about. --Abd (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I would see nothing wrong with writing such an article. On Meta-Wiki, you might not have as much free speech, because they could claim to see your continued complaints about the matter as disruptive or harassing. But the story isn't complete without interviewing the people who are most affected by the action being taken. Who will interview you? No one, because they don't care or they've already been kicked off Meta.
So, the involved party (i.e. you) has to put on his journalist hat and write an account of the situation from his point of view. But as we saw in my case, such essays are not welcome at Meta. However, you could post a lengthier account to your bliki (or other website) and summarize it on a relevant page here. Then others could fact-check your claims and edit your summary if needed to make sure it fairly presents what happened and gives both sides of the story.
There never was a requirement that a person be a wiki founder in order to have an article about him posted here. He merely needed to be a "wiki person". Anyone who has ever edited a wiki might fall in that category, if it's broadly construed. Leucosticte (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course you would think that there is nothing wrong with a total waste of time and space. Well, I became involved because I saw a strange tagging of a page for cross-wiki spam, that wasn't spam. As I investigated that, opened it up, worms started falling out. The first case is documented at a Wikiversity user page (and may become an educational resource there). Following up on that, I requested global unlock for a series of users who had violated no policies. That was denied at meta, but a steward suggested I file an RfC (and another wrote he had "issues" with what had been done). I don't file RfCs without prepping, and I can take weeks of research to do it. So I started to work on Antispam practices and, looking at current activity, I noticed another "cross-wiki spam" removal of what appeared to be an academic book, totally relevant to the page. And so I started to investigate that, and it led to the Santarelli incident. This is not organized to impeach the steward, it's simple a collection of research notes, so far, with only a little conclusion. But the same name keeps coming up in nearly all the activity. The planned RfC is on antispam practices and policies, it's not about the individual steward, but ... I have some idea that some stewards are embarrassed by what has been done, but don't know what to do. The particular steward has more or less threatened to block me before. It's a risk, but so what? If I'm blocked, I dump the data where others who might be interested can use it, and walk away, knowing that I did what I could.
I have a history of getting administrators sanctioned or desysopped, while you were busy poking the feds and wasting their money. Their friends retaliate, no surprise, but then a steward worked on another case, succeeding mine, and more of the faction involved was sanctioned. I'd uncovered problems with the antispam practices, back then, and the first ArbCom case was about that, abuse of blacklisting. My position was sustained by the Committee, but ... by that time the blacklisting had moved to meta, where the Committee has no remit. And it took something like two years to get that blacklisting lifted. It's about time that the meta policy be confirmed by the community, or revised, one or the other. Basically, policy is routinely ignored by certain stewards.
I remember my first user RfC on enwiki. The faction I was confronting was fat and happy because they mustered 2/3 votes "Ban Abd," entirely contrary to RfC policy, since the RfC was not about me, and had been cosigned by Durova. (Who warned me I'd be banned from cold fusion, by the way, if I filed, as I eventually was. At that time, I cared much more about wiki policy than about cold fusion, they imagined that I was a POV-pusher, because that is how they think.) But I expected that. The failed RfC provided the basis for an ArbCom filing, a failed attempt to find agreement. At first, they thought they might prevail before the Committee, and they claimed my evidence was cherry-picked. After all, any admin can make an occasional mistake, right? In fact, my evidence was a "total compilation of all relevant edits and actions by the administrator,* and what they thought were my hostile comments were the admin's own edit summaries. Whack! An arb decided to recompile the evidence, using a bot. It showed, of course, exactly the same thing. The faction scattered and the admin retired for a while. It was all, for the most part, a useless waste of time, because he wasn't the problem, the structure is the problem. He came back and just got his friends to do whatever he wanted, after that, instead of doing it directly. He continued the same agenda, POV-pushing, without any change. And so did they.
So, we never know what will come. Before I'm ready to file the RfC, I will identify support. If there is no support, I won't file. "Voice crying in the wilderness" is a formula for "waste of time." I've got plenty else to do!
If I'm going to put up the evidence and analysis somewhere, it won't be here, where it could only be useless, at best, and it could do harm. It would be on wikipediocracy, where I've been invited to write articles and blog posts. That's a place where someone might see it who can actually do something. Not here, Nathan. You have some sort of value in just "being right," or imagining that you are. I don't. I just do my work and see what happens.
The other place where it might go would be as a private communication with Wales. I have a specific opportunity for that, don't know if I'm ready. His project, however, his baby, is being corrupted by gross violation of wiki principles and policies, and it might be possible to do something about it. As you know, I'm about principles and structure, the individual incidents don't really matter that much to me, though, of course, I act with respect to specifics, as demonstrations or examples. What I'm seeing is the tip of the iceberg, and the problem is not "bad users," but defective structure, I've been on that for years.
As to Wikiindex policy and practice, I don't have any dogs in this race. I just want the administrators here to know what they are getting into. You brought down a few trolls and vandals. There could be a lot more where those came from, if enough oxen are gored. --Abd (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

reply to both[edit]

You both make interesting and valid comments (and criticisms!), and for differing reasons, you are both correct. It is true that WikiIndex could have been accused of having poor policy structures in the past, and even today, our policies arn't the best in the wikisphere. However, just like Wikipedia, WikiIndex is also a wiki - albeit massively smaller! And because we are a wiki, we can evolve and grow our own policies to suit our primary aim (we are not an encyclopaedia, we merely document wikis, and all which makes wikis 'tick'). Without 'people', wikis would be nothing, so it is absolutely correct that we include 'wiki people' - be they constructive or destructive in the wiki experience. Arguably, one of the most fascinating aspects of a wiki are when peoples with differing ideologies and experiences come together and create something great. Whoever we are, and whatever our beliefs, we are all welcome here on WikiIndex, and all thoughts on moving forward will be discussed in an open and constructive manner. Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmin / 'Crattalk2HH 22:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

What RONR has to say about attacking a member's motives[edit]

"REFRAINING FROM ATTACKING A MEMBER'S MOTIVES. When a question is pending, a member can condemn the nature or likely consequences of the proposed measure in strong terms, but he must avoid personalities, and under no circumstances can he attack or question the motives of another member. The measure, not the member, is the subject of debate." Leucosticte (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

What's the "measure"? RONR is formal process, and only allows one measure to be on the floor. However, when a series of measures are under consideration, the purpose of the series becomes relevant. RONR has means for summary resolution of certain kinds of disputes. As you know, that's often lacking on wikis. However, a basic principle is that, to be considered, a motion must be seconded. Motive, all the rest, is utterly irrelevant if there is no second.
If we are running a library, and we are offered a "special collection," the overarching purpose of the collection is quite relevant. If a collection consists only of materials added from a very specific and very personal point of view, that point of view, the collector's purpose, becomes important.
In the present cases, articles on wiki users are being created by someone who has specific interest in the users, often involved in conflict with the user, or frustrated that a debate was avoided. The information presented is highly selected, presenting a user with a complex history as if he could be reduced to a few highly selected snippets.
If the article is worth keeping, yes, the intention of the creator becomes irrelevant. But what I've begun to do is to examine a pattern of behavior, that will, if allowed to continue, foster, invite, and amplify disruption here.
It is not that it is impossible for this wiki to host "wiki criticism." It is that the structure here is not designed to handle it. Lecuosticte is acting outside of traditions here. The page on Category:Wiki People, which he attempted to change, has
this is a list of people who consider themselves to be part of the wiki community and their associations to various Wiki sites
Please add your name to this list by creating a new page for yourself.
There is nothing there about creating pages on others. It's been done for some highly notable people. Jimbo Wales, for example. Leucosticte created a page on me, Abd Lomax. It's not particularly offensive, though it points to a page that was intended to be so, from a dead wiki, with the material having been copied by Leucosticte to his wiki, RationalWikiWikiWiki, [4]. That page gives a warped history of my work, written from a pseudoskeptic RationalWikian perspective, where the primary goal of all RW work was maximized snark. It tells little about my real history, who I actually am, my accomplishments, what I'm known internationally for, though there is a hint about one small facet of my career.
Allowing such material opens a huge can of worms. Hosting controversial criticism of wikis was considered in the past, here, and no consensus was found. That's because it's a difficult problem. --Abd (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
"this is a list of people who consider themselves to be part of the wiki community" I'm sure that MZM, Nemo, etc. consider themselves ot be part of the wiki community. Therefore, they meet the criteria. Why don't YOU write an autobiography, if you want that other stuff to be included. Leucosticte (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
And I could do that, it's invited. Nathan, what is not invited?
The people express "considering themselves a part of of the wiki community" do so by creating the page. It is not just considering oneself a part, it is also consenting to there being a page here. Are you notifying the "wiki people" that you have created an article on them? Would MZMcBride want you to send him an email about that? What do you think he would do? Do you want to find out? I'm not notifying them because I've requested deletion of the page, making it moot, hopefully. I could drop a note on his meta talk page. What do you think would happen?
Hint: I've seen all this come down. I can't predict individual outcomes, but I certainly know what's possible as a result.
You are arguing endlessly, and your arguments are corrupt. You actually know better, if you'll stop to think this all the way through.
Instead, I suspect, you are setting things up for another wiki-Ragnarok.--Abd (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
It's actually a trap they're on the verge of falling into. If they go on Meta and say "This guy created articles on WikiIndex as part of a vendetta against us" and get the rest of their cabal riled up about it, then I will have evidence that they assumed bad faith; and since that's a violation of wiki norms, they will all be banned from Meta, and the only people left on Meta will be those who are either neutral or supportive of me. Those good users will get me unblocked, because there will be no longer anyone around to oppose such an action.
With the bad users gone, Sanger's Law will cause the entire culture of the wiki to permanently change in revolutionary ways, becoming more tolerant and open to dissident viewpoints. It will begin to better fulfil its three stated purposes. All this has been planned out; I am several moves ahead of my opponents in my thinking and they can do nothing but the forced moves that have already been decreed. It's determinism in its most sublimely pure and beneficent form. Leucosticte (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I personally think, after reading this, that your presence at this wiki is a big joke at our and others expense. You seem to get a sort of delight at seeing Abd debate with you, while you have no real intention debating with him. You seemed to have sucked yourself unto this wiki and you are planning to suck it dry. Ever since I started adding wikis to wikiindex, I have noticed that you continiously change your wikipages, start debates on irrelevant issues and now you are creating biographies on users you may or may not be enemies with. In other words, you want people to notice you here and connect your presence to wikiindex. Why? Who cares. But the pattern is solid and that is all I care about. --Redgreenfourties (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you are waiting for likeminded minds to show up on this wiki. That would explain your passive-agressiveness. You probaly think that the moment you have two or three people supporting you, you can use this wiki as a portal for supporting your ideas? --Redgreenfourties (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Fascinating. Leucosticte, you have written that some of your wiki pages are parody, sarcasm. Maybe it's not just pages on your wikis. The prediction about meta went completely over the top. Redgreenfourties, you may be close to the truth here. Pleased to meet you. --Abd (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
It would explain why a Danish-German Neonazi wanted to recruite me via a forum. --Redgreenfourties (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I was joking about that prediction of how things would play out at Meta. It was some mild escapism. (I say "mild" because I did successful restrain myself from including the original ending, in which I ride off into the sunset on a glittery unicorn. This compromise of the initial artistic vision was tough, but perhaps the scene will be restored in the director's cut.) Leucosticte (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

See also http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?AccusationThatAssumesKnowledgeOfInternalMotives Leucosticte (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

People see behavior and infer motives for an obvious survival reason. If one has a frequent complaint that others incorrectly infer one's motives, and doesn't examine and shift the behavior that is leading to those inferences, it's a racket and one may look for the payoff. --Abd (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Was it a racket when the guy in The Shawshank Redemption kept writing to the legislature over and over asking for a library? The idea is to complain until you get results. Leucosticte (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The strategy can work. It often works when we are children, we whine and complain until our parents give in. Because most parents are not skilled at dealing with this (the manual was lost when a truck went off the road), people are created who believe that whining endlessly is a way to get things done in the world. The "guy" in that movie was not writing "to the legislature," he was writing to individual members of the legislature, each one was a new opportunity. (I have not seen the movie, so I'm talking about what might work in real life.) If the first letters produced no response, he shifted his content and arguments. He studied the members and determined what interested them and he appealed to their interests. He actually communicated, he did not just whine and complain. He delineated a problem and suggested practical solutions that considered the needs of his readers.
Or he got lucky.
Leucosticte, you know far more than you let yourself realize. You know what a "racket" is, you have done the training, but you aren't using it. A racket is not merely a "persistent complaint," it is a "persistent complaint combined with a fixed way of being." The prisoner in the movie had plenty of time. You do, as well, living with your parents and taking very little responsibility for yourself. Was he "complaining" or was he merely persistent? To know, we'd need to observe his affect. Was he upset by "no library"?
"Fixed way of being" indicates that one is simply a machine, playing out old programs. While that's normal survival response, there are bugs in "normal." Let's say that to move beyond these bugs, these limitations, it's necessary to have ability to shift behavior, to drop prior "identity." Otherwise we can -- and do -- repeat the useless behavior until we die, always complaining that the problem is somewhere else, and that complaint completely distracts us from where we have power, over our own behavior. So the prisoner, I can imagine, learned how to get the attention of a staffer for a legislator, and how to move the legislator himself or herself. Had he persisted with his first efforts, perhaps on the idea that they were "right" and if he whined enough, he'd get what he wanted, what would have happened is ... nothing but more conviction that "they" were not going to listen to him and "they" were completely unjust and didn't care about people, especially not about convicts. --Abd (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh yeah, there's also the fact that he's a fictional character in a fictional situation. The movie was kinda vague about it, I think he just said that he was writing to the legislature repeatedly until they gave in, and when they didn't respond to one letter a day, he wrote two letters a day. Leucosticte (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
And when the sun comes out, it's because I whined about the clouds. First of all, prisoners don't get free postage. Second of all, the stories prisoners tell might not be true, at all, or might be hyperbole. Third of all, the story has been altered, perhaps. The Wikipedia plot summary has:
Andy begins writing weekly letters to the state government for funds to improve the decaying library.
Andy is an innocent man, a banker, wrongly convicted for murdering his wife. He would be high-functioning and would know how to write, and would not give up easily. However, maybe Wikipedia misses some of the story. Imdb has a more complete synopsis, and, sure enough, there is much more:
Andy sees an opportunity to expand the prison library, starting with asking the Maine state senate for funds. He starts writing letters and sending them every week.
After six years of writing letters, Andy receives $200 from the state for the library, along with a collection of old books and records. Though the state Senate thinks this will be enough to get Andy to halt his letter-writing campaign, he is undaunted and doubles his efforts.
There is a lot more story....
With the enlarged library and more materials, Andy begins to teach those inmates who want to receive their high school diplomas. After Andy is able to secure a steady stream of funding from various sources, the library is further renovated and named for Brooks.
Nathan, you are not Andy. Not yet. Andy was faced with total and complete unfairness, that intensifies, but did not waste his time complaining about it. He acted, always with hope, and that's the theme of the film. One more quotation:
One day he talks to Red, about how although he didn't kill his wife, his personality drove her away, which led to her infidelity and death.
Andy takes responsibility for his past. I suggest you reflect on that. It's a key to the future. --Abd (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Danish-German Neonazi[edit]

I am debating with Leucosticte and he is losing (I am getting upvotes), suddenly an anonymous person questions if I am German or French, I assume that the person is German, since the French wouldn't even whipe there asses with use, I make a bicycle-joke, I get a loud S.H. from the fellow, make a snarky remark and suddenly the person announces himself as a Danish-German Neonazi, who wants me to pick a forum where we can fight the "kinderschander" (written in German, not English) Leucosticte. --Redgreenfourties (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Other small points, he places on of his posts above posts directed at my comment with support signs and a few days later he changes my userpage in a harmless manner, by correcting my spelling. I posted a message on his talk page saying that I will give permission to someone if they want to alter my userpage. As of this postdate, he has not responded to this remark on his talk page. --Redgreenfourties (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, I feel like I am being tested. Like someone is looking how I will react. I don't like it. --Redgreenfourties (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah, this has happened a few times, that I've made a few minor corrections to someone's userpage and been told to back off. I guess I'll have to quit doing it, even though it's a wiki. Perhaps it's like walking onto someone's lawn to water a flower that seems to have wilted in the sun. The owner might have wanted the plant to live, but he wants even more for people to not trespass. Anyway, I have nothing to do with these other people you mention. Leucosticte (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
It is more like walking into someones backyard and removing all the shrubs and death leaves. When an aquintance does it, it's ok, but when a guy you barely know walks into your garden when your working in your house to clean up all the leaves, you wonder what there doing. --Redgreenfourties (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
He may have been a little offended at the delay in reply, though you did reply reasonably quickly.
Actually, Nathan, there could be a language problem here. The user here says that he said "he will give permission." I recall the post to your talk page as he said that he wanted to be asked first. It can indeed be seen as intrusive. Always ask. Sometimes I see something easy to correct, a single thing, and change it, and will then have an edit summary like "spelling. I hope this is okay. If not, my apologies and revert me." Mostly the Wikipedia guidelines on this say "Do not touch!"
I think he may have been a little offended that you did not reply. But I
I read the user page, with the jokes. Nice jokes. I look at it this way: that English is far, far better than my Dutch. And I appreciate it when those whose primary language is not English make an effort to communicate in English. --Abd (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
It is most likely more of a cultural thing, as of yet Leucosticte and I are not partners, so I would think it a sign of respect on his part to ask me if he wants to improve my spelling, that is all, no hard feelings. --Redgreenfourties (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict with above)Leucosticte is not trying to do you any harm, that's clear to me. The IP editors are trolling you.
  • Where are you debating with Leucosticte?
  • Now, what has happened on your user page is simple. There are hackers and activists on the internet dedicated to attacking sexual deviants, and the most popular target is "pedophiles." While child sexual abuse is a serious problem, these people are not actually involved with protecting children, they are full of hatred and are vicious (and there is real violence, people have been murdered on claims they were pedophiles.
  • Leucosticte is, in fact, a long-time wiki user. He came here with information about wikis, though it was largely about his own (I have not looked at the balance, but it's okay for him to do that). Given the nature of what he hosts on his sites, the appearance that he presents, it is not surprising that he was attacked here. He is being targeted by at least two people, I think, and it may be more.
  • One person, who registered an account, is a moderator at RationalWiki. I suspect some connection between her and the IP users, some form of communication between them elsewhere, but I have no proof of that, and it may be coincidence. Her behavior here was like her behavior at RationalWiki, which argues against her connection with the IP. Strange bedfellows. I think she was blocked here partly because of that IP activity, though it is likely not her.
  • These activists lie, they libel, and activists like them have declared they are not concerned about collateral damage. They don't mind if a hundred "perverts" go to jail, having committed no crime, if one child is protected.
  • Leudosticte is not a pedophile. He doesn't fit the definitions. He has no history of molesting children. He was in federal prison and was on parole for a completely different offense, and was under intense scrutiny.
  • He writes about these things primarily as an extreme libertarian. He's definitely provocative, he seems to enjoy the fuss created. It's complicated.
  • These IP users are after him. However, WikiIndex appears, to them, to be supporting him. So they are also threatening WikiIndex, and attacking administrators here, and, of course, me as well. And you are a new WikiIndex user, so they could also threaten you. It really isn't about you.
  • WikiIndex needs to develop specific policies about both Leucosticte's work here (to avoid unnecessary provocation) and vandalism and trolling as has been coming from the IPs. Without the policy and clear procedure, response will be delayed and quite a mess can be created. I've documented the open proxy vandalism/trolling to support possible wiki responses. --Abd (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The recent events are documented at User:Abd/Open proxy events/2014-03. The IPs which edited your talk page were, of course, noticed by me. They are using open proxies to conceal their location, at the same time as they accuse others of being cowards for refusing to debate with them. I'm a real person, I actually use the name Abd in daily life, and it's easy to find me. I have two small children (10 and 12), as well as five grown children and six grandchildren. --Abd (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The page where I had the debate was Category talk:OptOut, but anyway if you can vouch for him, then I will not push the issue. --Redgreenfourties (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I vouch for him as being unlikely to be a pedophile, but also as deliberately creating high conflict and controversy. He is normally cooperative as an editor, if given clear boundaries. as I mentioned, he did not intend harm in editing your user page. He will push certain kinds of boundaries, as might be common with people with, say, Attention Deficit Disorder. If it is not explicitly prohibited, he may assume it is allowed.
However, he can also be strangely compliant, when someone else might not be. There is a wiki where he was "banned," for a time, and is blocked (by the unilateral action of a single administrator) but he still has, as of this date, administrator privileges there, and could unblock himself. He hasn't. See, on Wikipedia, it's prohibited for an administrator to unblock himself. So he follows that rule. Yes, he might be desysopped if he unblocks himself. Or not. It depends on how funny it is. If it's really funny, he might not be desysopped, or he might be quickly resysopped if he is. Or not. It's a wiki, which, translated into English, means "unpredictable." --Abd (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I was reportedly given a "rule-out diagnosis" of pedophilia, although I wasn't allowed to actually see the report; as you know, that matter is in litigation. A rule-out diagnosis is an informal diagnostic label that means "the client meets many of the symptoms but not enough to make a diagnosis at this time; it should be considered further." The use of rule-out diagnoses is not endorsed by the DSM-5 and is sometimes even considered bad practice.
Isn't it against the law for people to go around endorsing Nazism in Germany? Leucosticte (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I think so. Perhaps some one in Germany could point out that some of the open proxies were on German servers, and server logs may exist and be legally accessible. Popcorn, $1 per bag. --Abd (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Trolls[edit]

Anyway, I got a message back from a German friend and he says your most likely being trolled by people from a Identitarian movement, or something similar to them. Many of them are dedicicated pedohunters. Ill post a link: [5].

Maybe. There were some hints in the edits. It would take too much time to track them down, and it doesn't really matter who they are. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Privilege-checking[edit]

You wanna talk about a site at which children are objects, pawns in a pseudo-intellectual game... Leucosticte (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

last post 2012. I think they must have all died laughing. -- I'd imagine Somebody around here would think the pedophile joke was funniest, except, of course, that real children get charged with child sexual offenses. --Abd (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Open proxies[edit]

We probably need some better proxy blocking tools around here; otherwise, it'll just be a game of whack-a-mole. There's a daily-updated list here of several megabytes of open proxy IPs; this can be imported into the database using mw:Manual:addProxies.php. However, tech support on this wiki isn't the greatest in the world, so such a comprehensive solution will probably he hard to implement. The war on spammers and vandals will have to be fought on other fronts.

I think the third party wikis have usually relied on security through obscurity. ChildWiki can't do that, though. Its defenses will need to be hardened, probably beyond what the currently available software permits. Therefore, more software will need to be developed. Leucosticte (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You would keep out the amateurs (most of the time), but you would be fighting a losing battle against professionals. Remember many proxy services where orginally designed so that people could get over there nations firewall, or unto far more professional forums and if that is not enough, a person could simply use dynamic IP's and unplug there modem, or manually change there ip. --Redgreenfourties (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Which would you consider 4chan, amateurs or professionals? I think somewhere in between, maybe. I dunno if that's who hit WikiIndex, though. User:Abd/Open proxy events/2014-03 Leucosticte (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Amateur, it seems someone and possibly there friends are mostly trolling wikiindex, because you are on here. I couldn't think of any other reason. Either there tired of the game, or waiting. I doubt you would experience a raid against your wiki, since you are not a pedosite posting videos or that sort of horrible stuff and the mods of wikiindex should simply keep there eyes open. It also possible that they are making fake accounts to troll people, I remember a now long defunct anarchists wiki where around 20 users made an account and occasionally posted and then suddenly started destroying the entire infrastructure of the wiki. So my advice is, look into new users who don't post or rarely post, they might be trojans, ready to be used on notice. --Redgreenfourties (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with "amateur." There are professionals engaged in eliminating or sanctioning pedophilia, active and otherwise, and they will not be operating like those using the open proxies. For brevity, I'll call them "pedo-trolls." What that IP study showed was that the only people using open proxies to access WikiIndex, in the last three months, were the pedo-trolls. That's an argument for banning open proxies. That's what the WMF has done, though they don't necessarily enforce the policy, i.e., they often wait until there is actual vandalism/spam/disruption from an open proxy range, but then they block the entire range.
That sometimes catches an innocent user, -- or possibly innocent --, and so there is the user privilege, IP block exemption. Easy enough to add the privilege for the rare case. Email is not blocked by IP blocking. However, a sincere user may be unable to create an account, that's different. In that case, what I've recommended is that the user go to a library or otherwise use different unblocked access, create the account, enable and confirm email, and then it becomes possible to request IP block exemption by email, for a named account. --Abd (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Apparently this wiki doesn't have the user privilege IP block exemption. IP soft blocks might still be usable. --Abd (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiIndex has CheckUser installed, and a few select sysops have access to that (follow the link on our Stats page). I've confirmed that the female moderator troll was abusing a few very different IP addresses, and so have been blocked accordingly. I havn't been able to make any direct links between the remainder of the IP addressess in the recent troll attacks - though I didn't go into great detail when checking. We do have the ability to block ranges of IP addresses - so if anyone notices a range of IPs being used for trolling or spamming, give me or any of the other sysops a heads up. Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmin / 'Crattalk2HH 22:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Dear Abd, could we talk in private? Perhaps via mail? --Redgreenfourties (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Use the wiki email interface. --Abd (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

difficult[edit]

Do You think You are less difficult?

That is no observation. Difficult is an opinion. It is entirely subjective. I could call Sean, Dave and others difficult if I wanted. But, what is the use?

However, if You call me combative I shall let that stand even though it is no less subjective and entirely depending on the situation. I am not this or that. I act like this or that in certain situations according to the situation. Dave called me belligerent after he observed my reaction to his so called hard-ban.

I do change headers rather often. Mostly to adapt to the content. In this case because the header was calling me names. So I kicked the ball back. Poor Dave was too upset to play the game right. So eventually he called me a WikiWikiWeb user which counteracted his intention behind his so called hard-ban. Proper title would be: "Dave Voorhis cries about Manorainjans unexpected belligerent reaction to his unwarranted so called hard-ban on wards wiki." ;-) Manorainjan (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiIndex:Teamwork Info[edit]

This is a proposal for a new wiki community related feature.

I hope You like the idea and find a way to integrate this table on Your User Page.

Online Accessibility E-mail Commitment Exeptions UTC Skills Duty Rank Propensities
 ? yes - -  ? - User consensus

It's first try. I'm happy if You help to improve it. Details filled in lines other than mine are of course only for demonstration. I'm curious to see how You might fill it. --Manorainjan (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Response[edit]

See my talk Koavf (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiki people[edit]

Perhaps you'd care to weigh in on this discussion. Leucosticte (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Two concerns[edit]

So, Koavf is concerned about WikiIndex being used to promote users and wikis, while you're concerned about WikiIndex being used to denigrate users and wikis. MarvelZuvembie was saying, "Wiki People pages were originally generated by the people themselves. I think it should stay that way. That's my criteria" while it seemed like Koavf's concern was that if people created pages on themselves, they would tend to be self-promotional.

Basically, it sounds like the only people who can create anything here are those who have no agenda, but why would such people bother? People usually create content about stuff they're interested in, whether because they have a strong like or dislike for it. It's kinda similar to how survey results tend to be biased either extremely positively or extremely negatively, because the only people who bother to fill out surveys are usually customers who are either extremely pleased or displeased with a company's product.

There was never really a policy created on what point of view WikiIndex pages are supposed to have. Are they supposed to be neutral, like Wikipedia? Sympathetic, like Wikinfo? Hostile, like Encyclopedia Dramatica? It's anyone's guess. Leucosticte (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I prefer that Koavf state his position for himself. Koavf is a Wikipedian. Wikipedians are trained to think that self-promotion is Bad. However, in fact, on Wikipedia, self-promotion is allowed in certain contexts, such as one's user page. Normally. Unless a Steward gets upset. Some stewards seem to think that self-promotion is Evil. However, most or all of the WMF wikis allow an established user *on their own user page* to promote their accomplishments, etc. They may block a newbie for spam. And, in fact, many of those newbie self-descriptive pages *are* spam.
Here, it was classic that users created their own listings. Of course they would be self-promotional! However, a certain user turned his wiki listings into a blog on everything you ever might have wanted to know about the wiki, it's history, it's disruptive users, it's drama with providers, and everything you didn't want to know about his personal life.
And then the wikis themselves were provocative, another issue, quite different.
The basic WikiIndex problem is low participation. That's fine for a wiki that can gradually and slowly build content or maintain it, for design purpose. However, when you have a wiki owner who doesn't take responsibility for basic decisions, but wants the community to do it, then there is chaos. Chaos can be great, but it tends to be quite inefficient except under circumstances I don't see operating here. The problem with the lack of standards is that someone can come here an build content that they think is peachy-keen, and then it gets blanked or blasted or deleted. That is not fun. Nobody likes to see their work deleted. (Wikipedia really missed the boat here, sowing the seeds for continued disruption. Plenty of alternatives existed, but the community became extremely conservative almost immediately. They could have created a *more reliable* project *and protected their users. But Wikipedia really never cared about the users, it was the *content*, man! Yet the only standard for neutral point of view is genuine consensus, Wikipedians imagined that NPOV was objective, and, of course, *they had it.*
I see WikiIndex as having, and for a long time, a narrow purpose, with most users believing they understood it, and working on it here and there. It was mostly a low-conflict wiki, because of that narrowness of purpose. It was, I think, *effectively clear,* the policy. Except, of course, it wasn't formal, documented, and, when problems arose, it was largely unenforced. Wikis die if they don't clear this passage. Abd
I'm not sure this is the first time these sorts of issues have arisen here. I don't think anyone has written a very thorough history of WikiIndex; there's no WikiIndexWiki to document the conflicts, and a lot of conflicts are settled in places other than the community portal. I can see, though, that requests for explicit rules have been pending since at least 2009. The question about the point of view of the wiki goes back to 2008. Really, RationalWiki was a pretty big test case here, and we see how that ended up. Leucosticte (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Proxima Centauri was a sysop here and a RationalWikian. She protected the RationalWiki listing while involved and was desysopped over it. However, I see no sign that policy was developed from the incidents. So then it happens all over again. I look at what was written then, people -- including one long-time sysop here -- wrote quite a bit. It is as if the wiki spat in their face, what you write means jack. Of course, they did not, themselves, write policy, they just gave their opinion. And that is common on wikis. Yak yak yak. Nothing. Repeat. Then someone violates a policy that was never explicit, and gets banned. They should have known better. --Abd (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought you hated the singular "they"? Anyway, yeah, I hadn't noticed he'd been desysoped over that. Leucosticte (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop vandalism/deletions[edit]

Please refrain from dictating policy. You do not get to require people to create accounts and declare certain edits unworthy and requiring of revert because they were not made by a registered user. Please stop.

A simple rDNS lookup would tell you that this is the IP address of the Akula server Ehrenburg owned by Krasnaya Security. There are at most, < five people who could be using this computer. Any attack you make is very direct. –maelstr0m 173.255.192.138 19:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, batshit crazy. You have made comments that are personal, ("my wikis"), and you lie in your posts and edit summaries, but you do not identify as personal. I have no obligation to research your effing IP. Ordinary edits, no problem. Libel and highly disruptive material, like ban requests, as you have been adding, big problem. Stay off my Talk page, unless logged in. --Abd (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to apologize for the trouble the above user has caused. I have examined their edits and allegations, and frankly, I too found it disruptive and your edits have, to my examination, proven reasonable and appropriate. I have blocked the IP for their disruption and again apologize for the trouble they have caused you. Arcane (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Edit conflict with the above. Thanks, Arcane. Below, before I saw the above, I explain a bit about what I was doing. It's a basic wiki technique for a regular user dealing with serious disruption. It works. Occasionally, I've been blocked for "revert warring," but, in the end, I've always been vindicated, because I am *always* seeking consensus and standing for community welfare, as my goal. The multiple edits call rapid attention to the problem. It's very simple to stop my activity: just ask me! If this were a bit worse, I'd be asking for revision deletion. I think, under the circumstances, it probably doesn't matter. Nobody will take those claims seriously. --Abd (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
"I've always been vindicated" Was that the outcome at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=433842952 ? Leucosticte (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Your middle name is "useless debate." It blinds you to what is actually being said. You pointed to the ban discussion on Wikipedia, which had nothing to do with what I was writing about above. Zilch. Revert warring was not an issue. I was banned on WP for creating a single sock and editing non-disruptively with it. No revert warring, no fringe advocacy, purely a status offense. My purpose was fulfilled. No, there would be no need to do on Wikipedia what I did here, because there are functioning, actively monitored noticeboards. I have done what I did here, on both en.wikiversity and beta.wikiversity, when administrative attention was thin. It gets attention. It's risky, because it can irritate an administrator.
Actually, come to think of it, I did do this on Wikipedia, early on. I revert warred with a blatant sock puppet, was blocked -- my first block --, immediately unblocked, and the admin blocked everyone else in sight. That was before I knew how to use the noticeboards. --Abd (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I thought they also took issue with your self-reverts. They didn't deem them to be an exception from the topic ban. Leucosticte (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
What you think, L., doesn't matter. There are users there who lied or drastically misrepresented the history. So what? There were many opinions expressed. Bottom line would be the complaint and the close. The complaint was, as I wrote, a single block-evading sock. Many other issues were brought up, that were face-palm crazy. "Promoting copyright-violating external links" was one, for example. I never did that. However, the person who filed the AN report had unilaterally blacklisted a site, making that claim. Everywhere it was discussed, the claim was ultimately decided to be without basis. But Wikipedians do not check evidence, they react to what is in front of them. I confronted that, many times, with success and that is precisely what was so unpopular.
The close did not give any reason but "consensus." (And it was obvious that there was no genuine consensus.) "Strength of arguments" was mentioned without any specification of what arguments were true and cogent and what arguments were not, and without indicating that any of the arguments had been checked by the closer. The close was unsigned. Ban policy actually requires that a ban decision be made by a consensus of uninvolved editors, but I've found, again and again, nobody does the analysis. I had been very active, and thus there were wide involvements.
The original AN report was filed by an administrator who had been reprimanded by ArbCom for his actions, in a case I filed, over his actions-while-involved, blacklisting lenr-canr.org. (At the time I became involved in the issue, I had no idea what was going on with cold fusion, I developed my point of view much later, having bought the books and having actually studied them.) In the second case with my name in it, also involving cold fusion, the administrator who first topic banned me lost his sysop bit over his actions. However, he was very popular, and his faction retaliated. I could go on and on, my conclusion -- before this ban discussion was begun (I was not notified and not given any opportunity to respond) -- was that Wikipedia was so functionally and fundamentally broken that it was a waste of time to continue with any serious work there.
I look from time to time, and my conclusion is still the same. The problem is not those people, the problem is the structure, which might as well have been designed for high conflict, and not genuine consensus. Wikipedia is a useful wiki, but is not designed for reliability. It's often very good, and then it can be spectacularly warped and biased. And fixing that, when the bias is maintained by a faction, more than one or two editors, can be almost impossible. I did know how to do it, and did it, and that is *exactly* why I became persona non-grata. This is only relevant here because this is my Talk page.
Self-reversion was something I invented to be used by a banned editor who still wanted to make positive contributions. It was not invented for me to use. When it was first proposed, it had a little support, including from an Arbitrator. It was suggested to a topic-banned editor, and he used it with good purpose. It worked, as designed. It created cooperation between that banned editor and the person who had requested the ban! Later, it was used on Wikiversity in an attempt to create a record of positive contributions as a demonstration of cooperation. One banned editor used it, and was unbanned. The other refused, since, after all, he was right, why should he revert his own completely correct edit? He was unblocked by an admin about to lose his bit, I suspect it was retaliation; it created quite a fracas. Reblocked, etc. Still globally locked.
So when I was blocked and effectively banned, I used it. I was very careful. It was predictable, however, that this would have no effect on the mob at AN. To them, a ban is a ban is a ban. No exceptions. *Not even obviously harmless edits that create no necessary enforcement labor.* And so was demonstrated fundamental contradiction in the Wikipedia structure. That was the purpose. I knew that I could be banned, and didn't care. Hence I have never appealed that ban to ArbCom. I also have watched ArbCom through many trials. It's also badly broken. The sock was created *after* the self-reversion period. My long-term position has been that strict enforcement on Wikipedia can lead to disruptive behavior. So harmless edits led to not only IP blocks, but expanding range blocks and revision deletion of harmless content. The admin who did that was reprimanded, policy was written to specify that this was not to be done, but, then, because admins hate to have any restrictions on what they do, an exception was written that any admin could drive a truck through. And who else cares?
In any case, I then created one sock, since the range blocks had become a nuisance. There was never a public complaint about the sock. The sock was blocked as an ArbCom block, though I was not under an ArbCom sanction (this was all misreported in the ban discussion). Basically, an arbitrator apparently decided to checkuser me, and I had not taken any evasive action. I later found, from the hacked ArbCom mailing list, there were arbitrators, even before the first case, where my position was totally vindicated by ArbCom, who wanted to ban me, but they had no basis in the first case. There really was no basis in the second case, either, but by that time, a faction howling for my head. ArbCom assumes that if there are many editors seeking to ban a user, the user must be doing something wrong. Actually reviewing evidence -- usually, too much work!
All this was set up by Wikipedia structure, which creates and attracts the behavior. It's entirely predictable.
It's not my wiki. The policies lie about what it is. They say what those who write the policies want it to be, or imagine that it is, but not what it actually is. And as users realize this, they leave, mostly quietly. If they try to change it, within the structures that have been set up, they burn out. So I have Plan B, which happens to be Wikiversity. Wikipedia is the tail wagging the dog. Encyclopedias were written by academics, who, in academia, develop deep knowledge of subjects. One of the Wikipedia tropes is that "neutral editors" can casually assess evidence and sources on complex subjects, that can take years to understand. So, create the deep study! And see what happens.
So far, I made one attempt to add a sister wiki link to the WP article on cold fusion, to the Wikiversity resource. It was immediately removed by a blatant factional editor. I was topic banned again shortly after that, after arranging for a recent peer-reviewed review of the field, in a mainstream journal, to be considered reliable source. A difficult discussion ensued, with editors who don't like the conclusions of that review, arguing tendentiously against it. The conclusion: RS. And I was almost immediately topic banned. The source is still listed in the bibliography, but no fact has been sourced to it, last I looked, and it radically contradicts what is shown in far weaker tertiary and media sources, which are used and cited.
Then, another editor added a link, a bit over a year ago. Immediately removed, same person, I think. Basically, there are those who will resist allowing readers of wikipedia to access deeper wiki resources. They are violating Wikipedia policy and consensus, but to fix this takes users who understand how to handle situations like that, and those that do it have often been banned. Most just give up. I address the "copyright" issue on one page, and it took weeks of process, to get one link in. Last I looked, it was still there, there were attempts to remove it, but enough editors now watching that they were reverted. But -- notice! the ban discussion repeats the rejected claim of copyright violation.
This is all classic social process: people remember, not what actually happened, but what they noticed and concluded. The copyright argument had convinced quite a few until someone -- me -- actually challenged it with evidence. And they remember what they thought, and they don't need to check it, since, they believe, they already know the truth.
The faction I'm talking about, five years ago, was maybe two dozen editors, including three or four administrators. ArbCom has no clue how to handle a faction like that, that includes insiders. They threw the book at the Eastern European Mailing List faction, which had one administrator involved, and they did so, quite clearly, because they were horrified at the very concept of editors communicating off-wiki. In fact, what the EEML and that administrator had actually done was harmless. He was an academic and had written, ini peer-reviewed articles, glowingly, about Wikipedia process. Then it bit him.
No, we will build content on Wikiversity, we will raise a generation of users who know how to explore topics and generate genuine consensus -- or how to document differences. And the monolithic Wikipedian structure will crumble, space will open up, and the future will be created. Or it won't. So what? We are having fun doing it. -Abd (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

How to restore the content I'm reverting[edit]

  • Any admin may ask me to stop reverting and I will. (Basic wiki user rule: admin requests abstaining from behavior, abstain. Discuss if one disagrees. Admins, defacto, and roughly, represent consensus.) The admin is then taking responsibility for this content being appropriate for WikiIndex, that's all.
  • Any regular user may undo my revert and it will stand. I am not allowing Leucosticte to do this, because he both attracts and enjoys and foments disruption around his participation. Obviously, I'm not going to allow the IP to attack him, and the IP is also attacking a whole list of people, including lying about "policy" at RationalWiki.[6] RationalWiki is itself batshit crazy, but so what? --Abd (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think he was being disruptive, really, except by edit warring. Leucosticte (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't care what you think, Leucosticte. Did you read what he wrote on the RationalWiki template? I didn't ask for him to be blocked, he brought that on himself. His attacks on you were *disruptive.* You might as well argue that the sky is not blue. Maybe it's not, maybe it's a sandstorm or a s***storm. Now, I have other things to do today... --Abd (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I guess the RationalWiki template edit was disruptive. Leucosticte (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Ya think?
One of the attachment therapists used to say that when someone said something really obvious. --Abd (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguing with a sysop who is issuing a warning[edit]

I don't see why it's a bad idea to argue with a sysop who is issuing a warning. Suppose I accidentally park my car in such a way as to take up two parking spaces on a street instead of one, and a cop comes up to me with his gun drawn, saying, "You parked illegally. If you do that again, I'm going to have to arrest you." I would probably think, "This is strange behavior, since parking illegally is normally not an offense that would warrant making an arrest. Also, why does he have his gun out?" This would make me think the more serious problem was the cop's overreaction, and see that as an issue that might be worthwhile to address. Leucosticte (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Right. You don't see it. I've been talking with my daughter about a situation like the one you imagine with the cop. There are times to argue with policy. When the officer has a gun drawn is not one of them. Further, failing to obey the "lawful order" of a police officer can be a crime. "Lawful order" does not mean that he was right.
Weird example. If a police officer is exhibiting "strange behavior," very good reason why it's a Bad Idea to argue with him. He might shoot you. Since you imagine you don't care, this is merely suicide by cop which you have suggested you want, many times, you don't think of that as a Bad Idea. It's a way to go out in a blaze of glory, you think. In my book it would simply be stupid. You are here, you have an opportunity to enjoy life, and you *can* enjoy life even if there is some crazy officer, but you would rather argue.
And you do this all the time. You make up completely insane arguments, *just to keep arguing.* Notice the word "argue." You accepted that word, because it is, in fact, what you do.
You either do not understand people, or you pretend not to. If a police officer is overreacting, if *anyone* is overreacting, arguing with them is downright dangerous. Someone who is "overreacting" is generally operating from the amygdala, with basic survival responses (though they can be heavily rationalized.) Arguing with them will amplify the response.
No, if a police officer pulls a gun on you over a parking violation, you do not argue. You succinctly assure him that he is in no danger, and ask he what he'd like you to do, and thank him, all in a tone of voice that communicates calm. And then you go to the police station or other authority and tell them what happened. With that same tone of voice.
If a sysop tells you to stop doing something you think legitimate, you find out how to appeal the decision to the community. Whether or not you even discuss it with the admin is a question, it depends on the nature of the warning. Basic practice: immediately assure the admin that, without his approval or community approval, you will not violate the warning. Then, if it's important to you, you *discuss* it. If you discuss with him, you will want to clarify what he means, so you *ask* him. If you aren't satisfied, then you, with caution, go to the community.
Look, I've found myself dealing with authorities, over the last year, that had the power and some possible reason to yank custody of my daughter from me. If I had argued with them, the result would have been completely predictable. I had a basis for argument. My adolescent rebel self would definitely have argued. You can't make me. You are wrong. Etc.
I might eventually have gotten custody back, if my daughter survived. She might not have.
I made a different choice. I asked the social worker for help. I demonstrated cooperation. I was *not* subservient, I simply did not challenge what did not really matter. My daughter strongly disliked the woman, thinking she was judgmental, and she was. I suggested that she look for how this woman was helping us, and, guess what actually happened? The woman helped. A lot. I could have made her an enemy, easily. However, I knew what made her tick. She has a job, and she sees her job as helping people and protecting children. So, hey, *we are on the same side.* I thanked her and acknowledged her for that. We may not agree on this or that. She told me I had to do this or that, which I didn't do. I did something different, that satisfied her and that was spectacularly successful. That case was closed because there was no more crisis. There was a whole network, a "team," of social workers set up to support my family, at one point we were seeing about six per week. That's all been shut down, now, *because we don't need it.* Everybody won. Well, almost everybody, I'm still working with my ex, she hasn't won yet. But she will, unless she prefers otherwise. --Abd (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Williamapercy.com and Brongersma[edit]

I wonder why Koavf missed those two? See, e.g., http://williamapercy.com/wiki/index.php?title=Pederasty_and_Homosexuality and http://williamapercy.com/wiki/index.php?title=When_a_boy_wants_a_man Leucosticte (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Trouble, seeking to make trouble. Diagnostic. --Abd (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sea lion[edit]

Sometimes it's so hard to get people to back up their statements. Leucosticte (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. It appears that you think people should back up their statements, to your satisfaction. Where did you get that? It's one thing to question what people say (it's quite normal), but it is quite another to demand proof, unless you are a defense attorney and even then, badgering or sea-lioning a witness is not a great strategy. It irritates the judge and jury. And if you say that to the judge, duck, because he or she will throw the book at you.
But you get to be "right." They can't take a joke. They won't stand up and defend what they believe. They are wrong.
You have the capacity to recognize how ludicrous your arguments are. What you may not realize is that by repeating them, you keep yourself trapped, all the while you *think* you are above that, you are not. They are just arguments, you say, what's the big deal?
No big deal. Eat them, because they are what you live with. The brain is programmable, and it is programmed largely with what you say.
Anyway, here's my Wondermark: http://wondermark.com/1k65/ --Abd (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
See also. Leucosticte (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Q.E.D. Cartoon character woman makes an off-hand comment about what she "could do without," i.e, sea lions, and is then harassed by a sea lion forever, demanding she explain herself. Then, the ****tards at Encyclopedia Dramatica end the introduction by claiming that "The comic ends with the man claiming the reason sea lions are so despicable is because they use this pesky thing called logic." They lie, which is no surprise on ED at all. There is no claim that sea lions are despicable. There is no logic behind the supposed "sea lion" position, it is pure self-interest and demand. Basically, Nathan is a sea lion, in this metaphor. He demands that the world explain and justify its existence. He does not actually intrude into people's houses and lives like the cartoon sea lion, but it's plain he'd like to. He believes that it is about logic. He's radically deluded, lost in his self-centered vision of life. Until and unless he gets it, wakes up, realizes what he has been doing, probably since he was a child. Meanwhile, there is always fish. Sea lions get to eat lots of fish. Raw, the tasty way. Don't mess with sea lions. Fortunately, perhaps, they don't care what you say, they are much bigger than that, they are not offended by mere words. Just don't touch their fish. Don't even *think* about touching their fish. Logic has nothing to do with it. --Abd (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
She could've just answered the sea lion satisfactorily and it would've gone away. But nooooooo... Actually, if the SJWs had been the sea lion, they would've launched ad hominem attacks against the woman, accusing her of being hateful, intolerant, etc. The SJWs are even worse than the sea lions they criticize. Leucosticte (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Satisfactorily according to whom? Who are these SJWs? I'm seeing an entire fantasy world, a caricature of reality, not reality, and a series of fantasy people, each of whom thinks the next is even worse. This is the sea lion I imagine, from the cartoon: it will never go away, until and unless the woman agrees completely with it. Real sea lions are far easier to satisfy. Say what you like, just don't touch their fish. Or threaten their pups. Or even look like you are threatening their pups. --Abd (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Weigh in on WikiIndex:ServerName#Poll?[edit]

I like to inform You about a likely decision to change the domain of our wiki. Maybe You have an opinion on this, suggest additional names even. Please take part in the decision finding process. --22:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Manorainjan (talk)

Thanks. I did. --Abd (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yawn[edit]

This place sure got boring. I think once a wiki becomes Category:ByInvitation, its days tend to be kinda numbered, since the impediment to editing prevents much new blood from coming in. Leucosticte (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2015 (PDT)