User talk:Abd: Difference between revisions

: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.

*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)