User talk:Abd: Difference between revisions

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

: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 :))  [[User:Hoof Hearted|Sean, aka <small>Hoof Hearted</small>]] • _{[[:Category:Active administrators of this wiki|Admin]] / [[WikiIndex:Bureaucrats|'Crat]]} • <small>[[User talk:Hoof Hearted|talk2HH]]</small> 20:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

::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. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk: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 [http://journalism.about.com/od/ethicsprofessionalism/a/What-Is-The-Difference-Between-Public-Relations-And-Journalism.htm 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.

:::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. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 01:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

::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.

:::''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.

::::Instead, I suspect, you are setting things up for another wiki-[[Wikipedia:Ragnarok|Ragnarok]].--[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk: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.

:::::: 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. --[[User:Redgreenfourties|Redgreenfourties]] ([[User talk: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? --[[User:Redgreenfourties|Redgreenfourties]] ([[User talk:Redgreenfourties|talk]]) 22:51, 13 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. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 00:41, 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." --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

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." ;-) [[User:Manorainjan|Manorainjan]] ([[User talk:Manorainjan|talk]]) 08:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

{|class="wikitable sortable" style=background:#dddd00

! Online Accessibility !! E-mail !! Commitment !! Exeptions !! UTC !! Skills !! Duty !! Rank !! Propensities

==Wiki people==

==Two concerns==

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.

:::::::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.

:::::::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.

:::::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. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 14:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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

==Yawn==

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. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 09:31, 20 May 2015 (PDT)