User talk:Abd

Hi, welcome to English Wikiquote. Enjoy! -- Cirt (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote.
 * See also What Wikiquote is not for common activities that Wikiquote does not support.
 * To ask for help or to talk with another editor, visit our Village pump.
 * To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
 * Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
 * Please remember to use edit summaries when editing pages.
 * When posting to a discussion, please sign with a date by writing four tildes (~&#126;) and saving.
 * Be bold.

Comment from village pump
Is Ningauble's comment accurate? Moulton had lead me to believe you had a topic ban regarding cold fusion, or maybe I misunderstood him. Was this the incident where arbcomm "shot the messenger"? Thenub314 15:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to ask me what happened at en.wiki, that's a very complex story, but let's start with the cold fusion topic ban. That's expired, a few days ago. So Moulton was correct about it.


 * As to the so-called "MYOB ban," (i.e., Mind Your Own Business), and yes, it's indef, Ningauble linked to the ArbComm case, it is RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley; you can read that monster and try to find out what behavior of mine led to the MYOB ban, i.e., what had I done where they were trying to prevent a repetition? Let me put it this way: there wasn't any specific assertion, it was just an idea that came up during the case, rather abruptly reversing what had been proposed and considered before then. Because there was no underlying misbehavior pointed to, but only sort of some general opinion that I "talk too much," it was impossible to know what the actual purpose was, and that ban led to continued disruptive enforcement problems, wikilawyering to the point that the original language of the ban became interpreted opposite to its plain meaning, a huge mess. I don't think they will do it again!


 * This is the bottom line, though: my understanding is that ArbComm is very concerned about the possibility of offending the "core." If you get a number of administrators upset with you, even if you are right as rain, ArbComm is worried that if they don't get rid of you, the admins will up and leave. So you will see decision after decision, where an administrator has offended in some way, that the admin gets at most a troutslap. Whereas a lesser offense by a non-admin, they throw the book at him or her.


 * I had successfully challenged two admins for abusive actions. In the first case, the admin was reprimanded by ArbComm, in the second case, the one resulting in my ban, the fellow was actually desysopped. Basically, what I'd claimed was confirmed, but they decided to ban me anyway. The same crowd, which piled in with laundry lists of complaints about me, whose claims they seem to have been accepting, had been screaming for me to be banned since before the first case, simply for filing an RfC that was later 100% confirmed by ArbComm. It was actually open and shut. But the crowd didn't care about evidence. They cared about who was on their side and who apparently wasn't.


 * The same former sysop is currently the subject of another case, because he and his friends continued pretty much as before. ArbComm has, shall we say, some severe problems, and they don't seem to be even close to solving them. It's pretty well known: if you are not an admin, file a case claiming admin abuse, that's the end of your Wikipedia career. Yes, they shoot the messenger. I was warned that they would ban me, by a former admin, highly respected, who agreed with me about the abuse -- and who certified my original RfC. She knew what I was up against. It wasn't just one admin, it was a whole faction, basically the same faction that Lar confronted and that the current RfAr on Climate Change is about, and that many other RfArs have been about: Pseudoscience, Fringe Science, Cold fusion, and some others. You'll see the same names popping up over and over.


 * I wouldn't mention it if you didn't ask. --Abd 04:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Abd/Erkut Erdogan
User:Abd/Erkut Erdogan has been listed at Votes for deletion. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/User:Abd/Erkut Erdogan. Thank you. ~ Ningauble 14:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Augusto De Luca
A page that you have been involved in editing, User:Augusto De Luca, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/User:Augusto De Luca. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. Mdd (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Fausto Cercignani
I do not think linking to an inquiry at Meta was a kindness to these contributors: should nothing come of it then it need never be mentioned here, where it is an embarrassment. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. However, I find it odd that you would object to my alleged lack of kindness, while yourself taking an action that could result in blocks, and without any warning to them, and without any attempt to guide them, to warn them if they might be violating policy, or to improve their work. It's an embarrassment to whom? My opinion is that they should know what's happening, they should not be kept in the dark.
 * These are not new editors, but all had edited the page, so that they would show up at VfD is normal, if they have watchlist notification enabled, and so the suspicion of socking was unwarranted, it would have to be long-term socking, in the absence of conflict, very unusual. Checkuser policy generally prohibits fishing like that. I've seen plenty of exceptions, and those exceptions represent a too-common willingness to violate policy, and policy exists for good reasons.
 * Are you claiming that an action on meta, that mentions the VfD, should not be mentioned in the VfD? --Abd (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My action at Meta was an inquiry: a request for information. None has been forthcoming, so it has been inconsequential. My opinion is that they should not be confronted unless something more substantive or consequential comes to light. Being confronted with the inquiry might easily give them the impression that they stand accused, which they do not. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is long because many issues came up as I looked at this.
 * Ninguable, you did accuse them of suspicious behavior, when the behavior was normal for SPAs. They have not been "confronted" with the inquiry. This is what I wrote in the VfD:
 * '' I saw this VfD mentioned on meta.[2]. The three users mentioned there, and tagged here as SPAs, are not experienced users and should be handled with care and kindness. But they are not new users, they are apparently fans of Cercignani. They may need support in understanding what the Wikipedia article needs.
 * I did not question your tagging them as SPAs. We need to know that, even though it's irrelevant to the VfD itself, we need to know that they are not likely to understand Wikipedia and Wikiquote policies, guidelines and traditions, and cut them lots of slack. Their arguments will often be off-point. However, so were yours, and you don't have that excuse, as a Wikiquote sysop. So arguing with them, particularly over matters irrelevant to the VfD itself, was disruptive.
 * The arguments you gave were content arguments, i.e., that could mean that various quotes were not "quotable" for this or that reason. You raised notability issues and copyright issues. Those are all matters to address on the page and talk for the page. The deletion issue should be much simpler, and when complex content issues are brought to VfD, it causes unnecessary dispute and disruption. To be sure, you are not the only person who has done this, it's too common, on Wikipedia and on other wikis.
 * Deletion should be simple: if there is no Wikipedia article on the subject, or especially if a Wikipedia article has been deleted for non-notability, deletion of the page for non-notability of the subject is reasonable. As you know, that's a separate issue from quotability of a particular quote. There can be quotations from a non-notable person that are allowed, because the quotation itself is quotable (i.e., notable).
 * So if the page has non-quotable quotes on it, they should be removed, that is an ordinary editorial decision, which, if sustained, shows prima facie consensus.
 * Filing a VfD to effectively remove all the quotes is unnecessarily backwards, an attempt to bypass the ordinary editorial process. If all the quotes are removed and that sticks for a reasonable time, then even speedy deletion might be in order. Speedy deletion can avoid controversy, properly done. However, my guess, the SPAs and some other users might oppose removal of all the quotes. It requires a rough consensus to maintain quotes in the presence of controversy.
 * You have raised a copyright issue. That's a trump card. Again, however, copyright violation for short quotes is iffy. You raised the issue of quotation of most of a page, but the page consisted of two short quotes. You are applying a standard (50% of page) outside of the realm for which that standard was created. But because this is a content issue, to be addressed as we address such content issues (not with VfD!), this should not have been argued on the VfD page.
 * What you really should have done, I'd suggest, is withdraw the VfD without prejudice, once there was a more knowledgeable editor working on it, and worked on the content. If the content is gone, then VfD becomes appropriate. You could, with your opinion, simply delete all the quotes. If that sticks, you then refile. But I think you know that won't fly. Some would return. You could also wait for Wikipedia to delete the article. That's what those SPAs should know is possible, and it's very possible.
 * The "wallpapering," (the wikilinking of every bloody noun on the page, and then placement of quotes from the subject on all these pages?), is also irrelevant to the VfD. That should be discussed with these users. I've seen this before from Italian users, I wonder what the it.wikiquote practice is. Is it normal for wikiquote?
 * What I see among these quotes are re-quotations or paraphrases by the subject of well-known quotations from others, without attribution.
 * I am not yet convinced, myself, that there is any quotable material from this subject. But others may disagree, and that is a matter to determine by consensus.
 * In other words, Ningauble, you may be correct, that, in the end, the page will properly be deleted. But there is a process established -- or that should be established and made clear -- and that process will make the necessary decisions. By the way, what you wrote, yourself, about "without prejudice" would hold for every subject. That a page is deleted for lack of notability does not ever prevent the creation of an article in the future about the subject if quotable material appears and if the subject becomes notable (or evidence of prior notability is discovered and asserted, or it's found that deletion was in error).
 * Wiki practices can be arcane and impenetrable to newbies, who may readily make assumptions based on shallow opinions of what is "right." We can see that in the comments in the VfD.
 * My suggestion, Ninguable, is that as an administrator, you specially take steps to *guide* these users, in a maximally supportive way (while still standing for the quality of Wikiquote). Administrators who do that avoid damaging the wiki by driving away newcomers. You are wearing two hats here: as an admin and as an ordinary Wikiquote user, filing a VfD for a page you consider non-notable. I suggest realizing that, to newcomers and others, these hats cannot be clearly separated, so, again as an admin, you need act with special care even in your ordinary actions.
 * Thanks for being willing to discuss this.
 * One more comment, I noticed this on your talk page:
 * ''Note that the principal reason your contribution was deleted[//en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Nis+Arend] is because the quoted person/source does not appear to be notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nis Arend might be notable, that would take research, I did find an apparent reliable source quickly. However, this is the flip side of the same issue: there is no Wikipedia article. It is possible to do an end run around Wikipedia by showing notability here, and likely the user did not do that. Most new users have no idea what is necessary, and will fill a page with stuff from sources that don't meet reliability guidelines. But it only takes a little, perhaps, to show adequate notability: []. probably doesn't do it. I found indications of other material behind pay walls. I did not look thoroughly, and had this been me, I'd have encouraged the user -- who may know Nils Arend and have access to reliable sources that don't show up on Google -- to show notability (and maybe to go for a Wikipedia article.) This was an SPA, only edited your talk page (and has 2 deleted edits, probably to the page you deleted)
 * This is what you actually knew: yes, Nis Arend does not appear to be notable by Wikipedia guidelines. No evidence had been shown. On en.wikiversity, faced with a content problem like this, we would do one of two things: we would move it to user space, where the user may work on it, and we might tell the user what is needed, and assist, if anyone has time, or we might tag it for proposed deletion, which will normally give three months for improvement. If the user removes the tag without fixing the page, or doesn't accept the move to user space, then we would have a deletion discussion. We wouldn't speedy something like this, because it can strongly discourage the user from improving the page and it requires a sysop to make what can be a complex decision. We might also no-index the page, dealing with possible SEO motivations. If we do speedy it, we would undelete on request, maybe pushing it into user space at that time. We avoid RfD when possible. And almost always, we can avoid it.
 * What we find is that this creates minimum conflict and user dissatisfaction. We used to have many contentious deletion discussions, with, still, a lot of useless garbage in mainspace. Because the solutions I have described can be implemented by ordinary users, we are gradually cleaning up Wikiversity, organizing it. Without conflict.
 * (However, Wikiversity's mission is not only the collection of educational content, but also fostering "learning-by-doing," and users learn by working on material in their user space, so our mission is, overall, highly inclusive, we are not limited to notable topics. What I'm pointing to are techniques for avoiding disruption, some of which might work here.) --Abd (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not going to respond to all of this, but I do have a few comments:
 * Your understanding of the ordinary editorial process at Wikiquote is mistaken. When the content of a page is believed to be inapropriate, Votes for deletion is the process where the community discusses whether a page should be deleted or not. It is a discussion of content, and notability of the subject is but one of several aspect of the content that may be addressed.
 * Apart from questioning the asserted standing of Brian Morris (who is cited in nearly 100 articles) to release the author's work, and from supporting your suggestion about improving the Wikipedia article, I do not believe I have made excessive digressions into matters irrelevant to the VfD itself. If you disagree see #5 below.
 * Regarding kindness to newbies, having one's contributions questioned can be disconcerting regardless of the venue. (In the particular case of users whose special interest is the work of an academic, one might hope prior exposure to the rigors of academic debate would be good preparation, but that is not always the case.) I make no apology for cutting to the chase, but if you think this is actionable see #5 below.
 * Regarding the separate case of Nis Arend, feel free to discuss it at WQ:DRV.
 * Regarding conduct unbecomming an administrator of Wikiquote, feel free to discuss it at WQ:VOC.
 * Finally, please bear in mind that Wikiquote is unlike Wikiversity in many respects. Your experiences there may not be a good guide to appropriate practices on other wikis. (For example, your recent activities at the One Thing page are wholly inapropriate here, notwithstanding watever may be practiced at other wikis.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Wikiquote is quite unlike Wikiversity. I'm proud of what I did on that page, and what I'm seeing is indication that I'm unlikely to find it useful to work on Wikiquote. I came here because the VfD was raised on meta, by you.
 * I certainly am not about to file a complaint about an administrator over what you have done, I don't file those things unless it's essential and relatively urgent, they can be highly disruptive. No, I make conclusions about the community by what it allows, and when I have a complaint about a community, my first response is to leave, until and unless some critical interest is involved. Those conclusions are all rebuttable, but only with actual evidence. Suit yourself. --Abd (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

shameless canvassing
don't you think? ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I said so, didn't I? --Abd (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Asking socks to self-disclose
has asked DIFF that the third-party who is a ✅ sock connected to accounts and  to self-disclose their involvement in the socking.

You are one of the accounts that voted before 12:09, 25 January 2015.

I ask that if you are behind the socking of ✅ socks and  to self-disclose please at Requests_for_adminship/Kalki_(4th_request).

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This is the process to follow, not the disruption on the RfA page. I will review the situation. I have not socked here.
 * However, first thing: asking the socks to disclose on that page is totally inappropriate. It is not relevant to the RfA itself. The extra votes were already removed. Cirt, you should not be handling this. Back off. --Abd (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Given your obvious friendship with Kalki, and the fact that you have supported them at the RfA, you are, by definition, an INVOLVED part of the process. THIS removal of text showing further examples of unadministator-like behaviour and language from him, and you trying to hide it in a talk page, is a somewhat questionable action. - SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not "hidden." It is linked from the RfA. Yes, I'm involved. So are many. That entire discussion did not belong on the RfA. It is not about Kalki. Amazingly quick to respond here, SchroCat? Suspicious. This will all be reviewed. As stated on meta, there is no emergency. However, the disruption on the RfA has to stop. That's being handled on the administrative noticeboard. --Abd (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with analysis by . But, I also agree with your moving the section to the RFA talk page. Please note that the process I was acting upon was recommended by , and that's where I got the idea to ask the socks to self-disclose, in the first place. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with below) Thanks, Cirt. Agreeing with SchroCat is not a good sign. However, yes, I read the meta comments first, before doing anything here. This should not have been handled by you, and for an obvious reason: it would incite response by Kalki. I'd have done this, in a very similar way, only on the administrator's noticeboard, and also with notices to the users. I would not have made the mistake of claiming that it was a supporter, I was aware of the possibilities from the beginning. And, of course, you are a possibility (as am I), though it would be extraordinarily stupid and I don't think that of you. I'm not a knee-jerk supporter of Kalki, and you can see I've been attempting to restrain him. I see more than one side of the Kalki story. Cirt, I know that it is possible for us to cooperate, because we have before. My interest is always developing genuine wiki consensus, maximally. And everyone makes mistakes. Ideally, we acknowledge them and move on. --Abd (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, I'd like to cooperate as well, but I also agree with that you seem to be an involved party here yourself, heavily advocating for Kalki. If I hadn't taken the actions I've already taken, we wouldn't even know there were at least two (2) ✅ socks at the RFA. -- Cirt (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Cirt, you have an inflated view of your own importance. If you are the only person who can handle issues, Wikiquote is in big trouble. I am not "heavily advocating for Kalki." I'm attempting to balance what I see as an obsession of yours. I'm aware of my involvement, but it is far more neutral than yours, and I'm still investigating, to confirm your allegations (or disconfirm them); but most of them were adequately expressed in one or two comments, not repeated over and over, knowing that this sets Kalki off. Stop it. Back off. I'm not sure you know my full history, given what you wrote. I don't advise poking me with sticks. It typically does not work out well. Meanwhile, I'm involved, yes. Yet you agreed with what I did. So my involvement has what implication? I have extensive small-wiki experience. People cannot abstain completely because of involvement. Rather, disclosure and seeking consensus work. I came here because of your activity on meta with respect to this, not to support Kalki, per se. I'm not involved in that way. Yes, I'm supporting him in certain ways, the same as I support all wiki users. Including some that have been blocked and banned. I do it for the welfare of the community and the wiki. --Abd (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , we have a ✅ result by Checkuser that there are at least three (3) accounts that have socked at the RFA. We wouldn't know that if not for my actions. No one else acted on this issue. I reported it, and it was Checked, and the results were ✅. You agreed with me to post to the users' talk pages and to the Admin noticeboard was appropriate, but not to the RFA page, asking the users' to self-disclose. I was following a recommendation by Billinghurst. So you agree with two-thirds of the places that I posted the notice to. It seems the problem is not me, but Kalki, because you feared, (and were correct), that he would overreact simply because I was the one that posted the notice to the RFA page. That is not a reason for me to not post there, but rather a reason for Kalki to follow some of your wise advice given to Kalki at Kalki's talk page -- advice you gave that I happen to agree with, by the way. So,, in the spirit of collaboration and civility, I must thank you wholeheartedly for the wise advice you have tried to impart to Kalki. Thank you for that. -- Cirt (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Amazingly quick to respond here, SchroCat? Suspicious." Does anyone here have any good faith, or do you start out by being obstructive and suspicious to everyone as a starting point? If you want to know more about me, I suggest you try doing 30 seconds background looking at global edits before you start throwing around needlessly pointy comments at editors in good standing. I expect a retraction of your comment and apology. - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't hold your breath. I will review. "Suspicious" is an occurring, not an accusation. You are definitely not helping here. Now, please stay off my talk page unless you have something constructive to say. --Abd (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I will gladly stay away: your levels of "civility" are way too low for me to want to deal with, especially when you think that saying "Agreeing with SchroCat is not a good sign" is somehow a sign of a collegiate approach to editing. - SchroCat (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Abd, try to be nice. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm civil, but not nice. Cirt has a history of high conflict. And agreeing with a disruptive comment, when that comment disparaged my action, and Cirt agrees with my action, was not a "good sign." There is a problem here, and it looks like it has festered for a long time. It's about time to clean it up, for the users to drop the cudgels -- and this is not just present company -- and begin, or continue, to work together. Those who want to do this, will do it, and the others will disappear or be asked to leave. I am not about useless complaint, Daniel. ("Suspicious" is not a complaint, do you see the difference?) But thanks for the thought. --Abd (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Review of SchroCat as suggested

 * SchroCat suggested I look at global edits. First local.
 * one edit on WQ, November 2014, to Ian Fleming. Uncivil edit summary.
 * returns 23 January 2015, revert wars on Ian Fleming with Kalki and IP. Removes warning from Kalki. (Kalki erred, and I've warned Kalki about incivility toward "troll-vandals." That did not help. However, SchroCat was grossly uncivil, from the start.)
 * For example, about the image he removed, his revert warring edits over it:
 * (Removal of just AWFUL picture) first edit on WQ.
 * (Undo revision 1840202 by Kalki (talk) rv AWFUL and unrepresentative image: adding dross like this image makes us a laghing stock) second edit on WQ.
 * (It is not a depiction of Fleming: it is an abhorrent and ridicuolous image that has no place on Commons and even less here. You are being foolish in even thinking this is somehow representative of Fleming)
 * ''("troll-vandal"???? What sort of idiot are you that you accuse someone of being a "troll-vandal" with no justification?)
 * ''‎(Undo revision 1840229 by 90.192.114.15 (talk) Sigh... signing out to revert now? That's pathetic)
 * (I can't believe you are so lame that you signed out to edit war as an IP - and you think you're admin material???)
 * (removing embarassing and misleading picturte)
 * ‎''(Undo revision 1840247 by 90.192.114.15 (talk) It's an awful &embarrasing mess. You may want this to look like a joke, but this image isn't Fleming, isn't even close to looking like him)
 * (Undo revision 1840251 by 90.192.114.15 (talk) Not sensorship (that's not even close). It'scalled having standards)
 * ''‎ (→‎Quotes: Image has bugger all to do with Fleming)
 * votes in RFA/Kalki, January 23. Uncivil. Uses "Idiotic." Outraged at Kalki suspicions.
 * When I moved the sock discussion to RfA talk, accuses me of "trying to hide" the discussion.
 * When I note the obvious, from local behavior, SchroCat demands retraction and apology and that I look at global contribs. I had not accused SchroCat of anything, and I'll stand with this, local behavior was "suspicious," and I can see why Kalki also thought so. What is see is a user ready to be, for no good reason, grossly uncivil, and who is then thin-skinned. Now, there are Wikipedians and Wikimedians, supposedly in "good standing," who are like that. So, global contributions:
 * When I note the obvious, from local behavior, SchroCat demands retraction and apology and that I look at global contribs. I had not accused SchroCat of anything, and I'll stand with this, local behavior was "suspicious," and I can see why Kalki also thought so. What is see is a user ready to be, for no good reason, grossly uncivil, and who is then thin-skinned. Now, there are Wikipedians and Wikimedians, supposedly in "good standing," who are like that. So, global contributions:


 * Central Auth
 * Almost all activity on en.wiki. Over 45,000 contributions.
 * SchroCat WP contributions
 * First edit I looked at:.
 * Full discussion: (comment at the bottom)
 * This is what appears to be an uncivil, accusatory interjection.
 * block log meh.... latest block for revert warring, six months ago.
 * talk page and recent archives look clean. But .... I know what to look for. Talk page history.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * (arbitration notice) case
 * The above links to material recently removed from the user talk page are not a claim that the removals were improper. They do establish that the talk page archive is not reliable as a record of possible controversy. I have not tracked these situations down. --Abd (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional notifications
Thank you,, for your additional notifications to the other parties that had commented at the RFA.

I see now that it's time for me to take a step back quite a bit from responding as much at the RFA.

I've commented that I will stop responding to Kalki at the RFA page, regardless of actions or comments by Kalki.

Hopefully this will allow things to cool down a bit.

At least one other user has said you are too involved yourself and advocating for Kalki, and you think that I am too involved. Perhaps by collaborating politely and respectfully together we can therefore achieve some sense of a balance of NPOV throughout all this.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cirt, if you have any concerns about the RfA or Kalki, you are welcome to address them here, and, if I agree that they are worthy of community attention, I'll take action or at least pass them on. You may also email me, it might be less disruptive. I appreciate your agreement to back off. This is half of what I wanted to see. I.e., your half. One step at a time. --Abd (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, I really appreciate that. What are you doing about the other half? -- Cirt (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have asked Kalki to stop defending himself. That's a bit like asking a dog to stop barking, perhaps, but at least we can say "hush, down boy, it's okay." Kalki has a long-term sense of injury, which is not surprising, given the history. That sense could continue to damage his life here (and, in fact, everywhere). I do intend to investigate the history.
 * Kalki took a position on socking that was not, at one time, uncommon. He also made mistakes, which he's acknowledged. Remember, anyone with very high contributions is likely to have made mistakes. (That's a problem with Wikipedia culture: some admin may take 100,000 actions, and sometimes because of a single mistake, they are toast. It's insane. On the other hand, there is almost no supervision, admins can get away with serious offenses, so when a mistake is truly found and the highly disruptive process of decision-making on that level is followed, the community thinks it must take strong action. It's an abusive culture, my opinion. Long story, eh? At some point we should have a chat about what happened with me on Wikipedia. Not today. --Abd (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for advising Kalki. Have you gotten anywhere with that, so far? -- Cirt (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not very far, I'd say. But a tough nut to crack. I don't give up easily. I'm an old dog, but do have a few tricks I've learned. There are no guarantees.
 * I have some idea of what makes Kalki tick, and I may be able to get through. If not, tant pis. He's been a major contributor here. It would be a shame to lose him.
 * One step at a time. It's important that I take a stand against some of your activity, I suspect you can understand that. Kalki is not reacting against me. So I have some level of trust from him. My goal is never punitive, my eye is always on the future, which we are creating now.
 * One thing I see as certain: the two of you engaged in a long-term battle is not improving Wikiquote. So disengagement first. The non-personal and site-real issues will be addressed, I'm assuming, because we can do that. I am uncovering some concerns about how Kalki handled the SchroCat mess, you will see this here soon. I will let him know. This is ordinary user stuff.
 * I'm also aware that I'm not a major Wikiquote user (though I will probably increase my regular activity). However, my long-term interests take me into small-wiki governance, frequently. I have some idea of how to do this. --Abd (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've offered an Olive branch, DIFF. I've said I'll stop responding to him at his Request for Adminship. It appears he hasn't socked for some time now, and I'm quite proud of him for that. If he becomes an admin again, I look forward to working together with him to improve the quality of Wikiquote in a collaborative fashion. -- Cirt (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw. Wow! Now, please give him some time to stop bouncing. It can take that to shift gears. What you did, acknowledging that he had not been socking, that was big, Cirt. --Abd (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

New problem
Abd, we have a new problem here.

It seems likely that Kalki logged out at page Ian Fleming and then began to edit war with.

was blocked one-year by admin.

History of the article at.

If the IP was Kalki logged-out-editing, it shows a pattern of renewed willingness at editing without using his own "Kalki" account, in order to continue a dispute with another editor (not myself).

What can be done about this?

-- Cirt (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 18:25, 23 January 2015 = last edit by Kalki before the IP shows up.
 * 18:34, 23 January 2015 = IP shows up less than ten (10) minutes later, to continue exact same dispute.
 * Abd, perhaps you could kindly ask Kalki if the logged out IP was himself? -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * AGF, please. Back off. One step at a time. It's not an emergency. I had already come across this, it is one of the issues I will address. Gotta go now and pick up Daughter. --Abd (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This amounts to an on-wiki accusation. I understand the olive branch is new for you! Please remember it! --Abd (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This issue was already brought up by SchroCat at Kalki's RfA. The IP is obviously not his. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your opinion noted. I was already aware that it was brought up. Your basis for the claim? There are a number of issues here. The IP issue is only one.
 * I'm aware of a universe of possibilities. I do not focus on one and try to prove it. To my mind, that's a form of insanity, though common.
 * I'm in process. Remember, I research before shooting off my mouth or foot. I still do it sometimes. Watch. --Abd (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Abd, I agree with you it's on-wiki and above-board. The problem was discovered by me only after the olive branch. I still very much wish to have kind and polite interactions with Kalki. But this amounts to a potential serious problem of a violation of site policy on 23 January. The RFA itself started actually before that, 14:02, 23 January 2015. So that would mean use of logged-out-IP-address to continue dispute -- during the RFA itself! If correct, would you see such site policy violation as a serious problem? How is that not urgent? Please help me understand? -- Cirt (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Abd, I'm looking at the history of the article editing dispute and it does look quite concerning. I'll wait for your insight to hear what you think. -- Cirt (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am fully aware of the implications. I was already planning on addressing this. Be patient. -Abd (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, Abd, I'll take no further action here, and defer to the judgment of yourself and others. -- Cirt (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Way cool. Cirt, if nothing else, you have figured out how to look good. Since we do have some history, that could have ended up as a giant mess, I've seen you stand behind it. Are we having fun yet? --Abd (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by that last question? -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fun. It's a strange thing that some humans have. Have you tried it?
 * Actually, I should start Wikiquoting: Fun. --Abd (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I know the definition of the word. I don't understand your question in relation to our prior discussion, above? -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To understand, try this: Repeat aloud my question, "Are we having fun yet?" Then say, "Yes," and notice what happens. --Abd (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Now what? -- Cirt (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. What happened? --Abd (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know, you tell me, please? -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * How can I tell you what happened to you when you said it? Try it again. This time, notice what happens. Hint: it is not a thought. It may be quick, transient, or not. Then tell me. --Abd (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel a sudden rush of frustration and amusement at the feeling and realization that I am being played with as a small child plays with an ant using a magnifying lens. Is that what I was supposed to feel? -- Cirt (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no "supposed to." There are possibilities. What you reported was not a primary response, it was a high-level defensive or survival reaction based, not on your primary experiencing in the moment, but on what you think about me and what you imagine I'm doing. It reveals a great deal of your psyche, but that was not my goal. You would probably find what I'm talking about in small muscle movements in the face. Those might be suppressed by a focus on "serious business." No smiling allowed. The real goal would have been blatantly obvious. So that did not happen. If it really worked, deeply, you'd be laughing. I wasn't expecting that. It's merely a possibility.
 * Look, what I'm doing here, I'm trained to do in person, and I can do it with voice, on the phone. It only succeeds with text with some very substantial rapport established. Basically, what I had in mind will only happen if you make it happen.
 * Back to the "amusement." Was there a trace of a smile there?
 * Consider this: Is "played with," for you, a bad thing? Why? Something wrong with play? "As a child plays with an ant using a magnifying glass." Children playing with ants that way burn them up. Did you feel threatened, attacked? How?
 * So as to the question, are we having fun yet, I would guess that your answer is no. You are not having fun. I had a little fun imagining that you were or would be. Do you want to have fun? Do you know how fun begins? --Abd (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, I did address the issue you raised here, at least half of it, and I'll do the rest, and I'll follow it. I see that you also brought this up on an admin talk page. That is not backing off, it is continuing to stir the pot. But you did then back up. Next time, please back up before you hit Save. Okay? If there is an emergency, that's different. --Abd (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For the 2nd part, sounds good. For the 1st part, I agree with you the exercise probably doesn't work well via text-only-communication. -- Cirt (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks on the 2nd part. We'll see what happens. Rome was not built in a day. But I bet they sent up a great tent city!


 * It could have worked, and, in fact, I don't know that it didn't work. In person, I'd be highly interactive, in a high-bandwidth environment. Still, I'm writing on Quora now, and I see it work there, sometimes. Basically, someone will take what I write and get it. You could still try it again. Actually ask yourself, aloud, are we having fun yet?


 * It's a question where the answer creates itself. Lots of things are like that. If you ask yourself the question, you can then answer it, and you choose the answer. Many people do not understand that this is a choice. They think they are supposed to "tell the truth." Yet what they say is entirely invented. Suppose I think, I'm not having fun, so I'll say No. How do I know I'm not having fun? What are the marks of not having fun?


 * Cirt, I could be cracking jokes on my deathbed. Why not? Suppose I'm in pain, I've got a headache. Hey, I'm 70. The body doesn't work like it used to. Does that mean I can't be having fun? Why? We make these things up, so if we say No to the question, it's only an absence of a recognition. It's not a reality, it is something not discriminated and not declared. What would be more true would be "I don't know if I'm having fun."


 * You know the training I've been in. Basic: most of the stuff we tell ourselves is not reality, not "what happened," but is invention, created through a process I won't go into here.


 * For over a year now, my 13-year-old daughter knows that fun is something declared. She can do it. "Daughter, are we having fun?" "Yes." "How do we know?" "Because we say so."
 * That's it. But something happens when we say so. The amydala is programmed verbally, it's a specially human thing, though animals also have it. If we say we are having fun, the body responds. We smile, or laugh, or have other responses.


 * Absolutely, there are overrides. If there is an emergency, you are not going to sit down and just smile, rather you will get into action. If there is tragedy, as well. The amygdala does do survival first.


 * But I find it extremely useful to be able to have fun, just because I say so. And miracles happen. I've written about one on Quora, and it has, in three months, accumulated over 33,000 page views, and 299 upvotes. I converted what would have been a horrible day into a story I will tell for the rest of my life, and that I tell people and they tell people. All by declaration. Like magic. But it's not magic, it's just how the brain works.


 * Yes, if I think I'm not having fun, it starts there. I can say, "I'm not having fun," and my occurring will correlate with what I say. How's that for Landmartian? Yet I can recognize the possibility of fun. Could I have fun right now? There are not many people who can contemplate this for more than a minute with busting into a smile. We start by laughing at our own insanity. And this could lead into a huge conversation. Not for today. There is some Seriuz Biznis to attend to here. --Abd (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

the troll-vandal in question
is not "new", he has been around harassing people for many years. This is one of his early accounts. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Daniel, you are very unspecific. It looks like you might be attempting to contradict something I wrote. If you are responding to something somewhere else, a diff would be appreciated. The "new user" I wrote about, AFAIK, is not the IP. The IP was revert warring with the new user I've mentioned. --Abd (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Very good advice
You're giving Kalki some very good advice, Abd.

I'm impressed.

I hope his responses show he's listening to you and takes your advice to heart.

Good job,

-- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There is a defensive reaction we have to being advised. I advised a certain administrator on en.wiki. He really didn't like it. The result was that he was desysopped. He was very popular. His friends blamed me. That's my Wikipedia story in short. There is a long version, and if I tell it, I get obsessed. The past does that to us. Right?


 * In any case, my point is that my fuses are not going to blow if he doesn't take my advice. Sometimes it takes repetition, and especially repetition from more than one. You just aren't the one, right now. Develop some rapport with him, you might be able to advise him. Meanwhile, I highly recommend giving up being the Defender of the Wiki against Kalki.


 * Instead, from today, join him. Support him in whatever he does that is right, and let go of what isn't. We won't die if he creates some more walls of text. If he was that IP, it will take him down, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't.


 * You did good work congratulating him on not socking.


 * He has Founders' disease. Long story. Let's help him be spectacularly successful. --Abd (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright. I hope you can get through to him. I'll think over your suggestions, above. -- Cirt (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Assuming the worst of me, and commenting, incorrectly, before seeing
DIFF and DIFF.

Please correct these false statements about me.

I'm not sure why, but you assumed the worst about me and my intentions, before even seeing the actual evidence.

This comment: "U SON OF A BITCH U BETTER UNBLOCK ME OR ELSE U AND UR LOVED 1S WILL FACE A PAINFUL DEATH!" was started with the subsection header above it: "UDSCOTT WHAT THE FUCK?!"

Without evidence, you assumed it was the sock talking to the sockmaster.

It was not.

It was directed at admin UDScott, and now we know that edit was controlled by the same person behind the admin account. See UDScott's response DIFF.

Please modify your multiple false statements about me.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Cirt, you presented that in a pile of evidence. In any case, I'll review and strike as appropriate. Stop trying to prove the point, it's annoying. You also are annoying stewards on meta. Your choice. They may put up with a lot before they don't. There isn't always a lot of warning. --Abd (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Abd, you're all talk and then when proved wrong, you keep assuming the worst about me. Surely you see that. And then it's really quite tiring. It's hypocritical. You assume the worst about me, and the best about a sockmaster that threatens an admin and his family with death. Surely you must see the double-standard here. The double-standard is quite frustrating. -- Cirt (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Abd, we were working better together. And then you say things like: "I'm appalled, that's so misleading." What? You think I was intentionally trying to mislead people? And then you say that, before seeing all the facts, before asking me about it, before asking me to restore the edit so you can see the entire thing? Instead of waiting, you say I'm being "misleading"? How is that fair? And then, again, you say: "Stop it, Cirt! First of all, I cannot review evidence on deleted pages. Secondly, it appears that the admin he threatened was himself. This was a Bad Joke. Stop trying to make the situation look Terrible. We will sort it out, trust us, Cirt." It wasn't a "Bad Joke". It wasn't "threatening himself". There is no need for you to shout with exclamation marks "Stop it!", to me. There is no need for you to use exclamation marks or the command-form-of-grammar at me. Especially when you were incorrect in assuming the worst about me. I was not being "misleading". -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I myself am a bit "appalled". I'd like to have a good working relationship with you, Abd, but I'm quite taken aback that you repeatedly assume I was trying to be "misleading", while you simultaneously assume that threats of physical violence to an admin are merely a "joke". Please, Abd, take some time to reflect on how this double-standard application is inappropriate, as described, above. I sincerely hope you're doing well during the winter storm, if you're near that region. -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Cirt, I'm in the middle of reviewing that and clarifying, when interrupted by the notice here. Please stop pressing, it was not necessary to quote what you had linked to. Exclamation marks are succinct expression of what you are taking much text to express.
 * I will still stand with misleading, by the way. That is an effect, not an intention, I said nothing about what you were "trying" to do. I think you believe what you write.
 * It's becoming obvious what happened. The evidence does not indicate that Miszatomic is a big danger. It does indicate that he needs warning and guidance, which had not been provided. You may think "he should know." He obviously didn't, the whole thing was completely stupid. --Abd (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was most certainly not being misleading. Surely you see that, based on the evidence? -- Cirt (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * People who are misled are helplessly misleading. Enough, Cirt. --Abd (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please help me to understand how you feel I was being misleading? -- Cirt (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, do you understand the difference between a statement being misleading and the person making the statement being misleading? While you are thinking about that, I've struck the first comment. However, Cirt, at the time that I made that comment, the evidence you had put up did not show UDScott. It was misleading. It made it appear that the admin he was threatening was himself, only the name Miszatonic was mentioned.
 * There is also a distinction I would make between imitating a known troll/vandal, and doing what that troll/vandal does, without intention to harm, and someone actually intending that harm or intending to intimidate, etc. The persona of Jody Fosteur was totally insane, a bad imitation of certain hysterical characters, and not likely to actually frighten any administrator. It simply looks really bad.
 * Now, I don't have time for this. I want to look at the other comment and correct that, as well. I take it seriously when accused of incivility. I'm forthright and express my opinions, but also consider myself obligated to correct errors or even simple hyperbole. --Abd (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Subpage User:Abd/Miszatomic
Hi Abd. I'm notifying you of a bold edit that I made to your subpage. I hope you don't mind. As for the reason the CheckUser was ran on the English Wikipedia. As you can see here, there is editing overlap between Miszatomic and Jimmy11234 to include some minor vandalism style edits on the part of the Jimmy11234 account. This in addition to the accusation that Miszatomic was behind globally locked accounts used for harassment was what lead me to believing a CheckUser was justified. Hope this helps, Tiptoety  talk 23:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The change is fine. I'll check it out. In my investigation so far, there has not been time to investigate all the possible issues. That checkuser, though, was not based on an allegation against Miszatomic. The only real overlap is Jimmy11234 and Miszatomic, and checkuser on Wikipedia could only detect this through autologin, I think, because Jimmy would have been stale. Is that true?
 * There was no accusation of Miszatomic being behind globally locked accounts used for harassment, until that checkuser revealed a connection between Miszatomic and Jodie Fosteur.
 * And Miszatomic, who is, I hope, by now, aware that deception on this could be wiki-fatal, appears to be claiming that he was not Jodie Fosteur, but logged into that account with the revealed password, which, if true, was a trap set by the real vandal, and Miszatomic fell right into it. Miszatomic is not a highly experienced user. I think it is possible to verify the claim. Jodie Fosteur did not edit Wikipedia, but was automatically registered there.
 * I have an idea what happened with Jimmy11234, but will review the evidence more deeply. The edit you pointed out is of an IP talk page that was also edited by Miszatomic. Definitely not the kind of sock master I'm used to, who would never risk discovery from edits like that. Naive.
 * Thanks for taking an interest. At some point, there may need to be some checkuser review, but my desire here is to get all the ducks in a row, first. Now, where is my vial of magic pixie dust? I know it's around here somewhere. I think I left it next to the crystal ball, which I can't find either. Maybe it's time to clean this place up. --Abd (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You are correct that the locked accounts were found by another English Wikipedia CheckUser - you'll note my check was ran after that. As for the loginwiki information, that is not available to local CheckUsers. Instead, the reason that the locked accounts appeared on our results is that they registered locally when they were created (SUL). Any logged action (auto account-creations) creates CheckUser data which is held for the 4 month time frame, after that the data is stale. The only people who can view loginwiki data are Stewards. I personally disagree with this and feel that it is a way to circumvent local CheckUser processes, but that is a discussion for elsewhere. As for the Jimmy account, it is common for people to create good hand, bad hand accounts, which is what this appeared to be to me. Anyways, best of luck with all of this. I'm going to slowly back my way out of this drama. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 23:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So automatic account creation -- which often happens without even looking at the wiki -- creates local checkuser data. Since this is automatically done by the SUL system, it must deposit the identification data in each local wiki's databse. It is a "logged action" even though the user took action on another wiki. Hence Cirt was able to do what he did, use enwiki checkuser to detect accounts that had no enwiki activity. Few users would be aware of the possibility. Yes, good hand/bad hand, common temptation. I haven't concluded yet what Jimmy was. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Added more evidence
Had to add more evidence, after claims were made that my actions were somehow either factually wrong or slanderous, both quite untrue.

Other than that, I have been staying away and focusing on content.

I broke down the timeline of the claimed password reveal.

I also pointed out several discrepancies in statements made by Miszatomic.

-- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd really rather you not do this. Suppose that Miszatomic makes an untrue claim. Is there a problem with it taking a few days to come out? I will look at what you presented, but, really, Cirt, back off. You could be risking your admin bit.


 * It's important that the community handle these issues, otherwise it becomes a factional dispute, one side against the other. Staying away for one or two days? Cirt, this is a wiki. The long term counts.

If you want to do research, fine. But not as a prosecuting attorney. I will look at what you did, but what you present on process pages should be very carefully handled. You are way too involved. You are like a police officer who uncovers a crime, but then, in court, keeps speaking up with more accusations and to "correct" errors of the various attorneys and the judge, and to confront the defendant over "lies." Do you know what would happen?

You agreed to stay away. If you are going to break that agreement, notifying others *first*, consulting with them, would be what integrity requires. --Abd (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Abd, I was responding to a post by Billinghurst about me. -- Cirt (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Abd, I am indeed trying to follow your advice. But please understand it's quite difficult to stand by when I feel factually incorrect claims are being made about me and I have no recourse. It feels like a pile-on against me. It feels like you and others are trying to find every way you can to hang me and exonerate Miszatomic, at the same time. That feels terrible. I've backed off for quite a while, I only posted a bit more after the claims by Billinghurst against me which I felt the need to respond to. -- Cirt (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Imagine how Miszatomic feels. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging this about me
"The block of Miszatomic, while possibly premature, was within administrative discretion, and Cirt immediately referred this to the community, and has stopped attempting to be the enforcer here."

Thank you, thank you, thank you for acknowledging this!!!!!

Yes, this is correct.

I did immediately refer it to the community, yup.

I'm definitely trying to pull back and allow the community to discuss, but when there are direct statements and accusations made about me, I feel I must respond and not ignore them.

I have, however, been trying to ignore other things even if I feel they are wrong, elsewhere.

I hope you can see that.

Thank you again for your statement linked above about me,

-- Cirt (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You have said a lot that others will respond to, not liking it or not liking your style or whatever. Please, unless there is formal process and in those discussions, let others defend you. This is old-time wiki wisdom. If you respond, they will respond, and it can go on and on and on. If someone says you are a horrible monster, so what? Do you have to say, "I am NOT a horrible monster?" It's just someone's opinion at that point. People want to be heard. When you defend yourself, it leads them to respond with more criticism. Basic social process, many of us take a long time to understand. It has certainly taken me way too many years. --Abd (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. But I wait for others to defend myself and though you said nice things about me, above, "The block of Miszatomic, while possibly premature, was within administrative discretion, and Cirt immediately referred this to the community, and has stopped attempting to be the enforcer here.", you haven't said that enough at the page itself for Miszatomic. I agree it's best for others to defend you but I also agree it's hard to not respond when someone like Billinghurst comes in and says all that. It's not accurate. It's factually not accurate, and it's chronologically not accurate regards to the Checkuser information I was acting upon at the time from three (3) Checkusers. -- Cirt (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * When you believe you are under attack, your ability to assess the situation is reduced to primitive survival responses, which aren't very smart. Back up. You are safe. The only danger to your admin bit is if you overreact. If Billinghurst is wrong, let him be wrong for a while. Billinghurst might prefer to see me fall off the edge of the earth, but I also trust him to be honest and straightforward. I also have to watch out for the level of my responses. I'm a prolific writer and have often been accused of overwhelming pages. If it's important, it will still be important tomorrow. Today is not decision time. When Miszatomic puts up an unblock template, if he does, I will want to see that admins have the information they need. Until then, I'm working step by step to gather and collate it, and you can help. I will not allow User:Abd/Miszatomic to become an attack page, but fact is welcome there. I will regulate that page. That's why I do this in user space, it gives me defacto admin privileges (as most admins will interpret). Notice that a checkuser already edited it, and very respectfully asked me if it was okay.
 * It is not a disaster for the wiki if Miszatomic is unblocked by an admin who doesn't understand; it would merely be, at worst, a lost opportunity -- and not good for Miszatomic.
 * It is important for me that I maintain objectivity. The goal of that evidence page is not conclusion, though I may express some opinions there. Conclusions will be made by the community (or by individual administrators acting as they see fit on behalf of the community.) --Abd (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with above) Yes. I get that it's difficult. Look, I've gone through intense training. My job: make myself an idiot in front of a group of people, who then tell me exactly what they saw. And my job: listen. I did that in an 8 month program. A Forum Leader does it for years, before being recognized. First thing to be confronted: my tendency to defend myself instead of just listening. The coaches were not subtle. "Shut up!" Okay, I shut up. The result: freedom.
 * It is very difficult! It goes against much that we have been taught or learned.
 * If you are thinking that I am trying to "exonerate" Miszatomic, two comments:
 * You must think he's guilty of something. Bad. Horrible. And, of course, he should be punished.
 * You aren't paying attention. I'm working to bring out fact. I am not jumping to conclusions. I do have some preliminary conclusions, but not all the facts are in. As I told you, I have seen more than I've acknowledged. And I am deliberately holding back, because I don't want to feed the "right answers" to Miszatomic. I'm encouraging him to tell the truth. How much I know should be irrelevant.
 * My "knowledge" might be in error, anyway. Until and unless there is a local checkuser investigation, we may not know for sure (even if some conclusions are likely). This situation is testing Miszatomic, it is testing his courage and his wisdom. He is still an admin. If he's to continue, either now or in the future, we need to know what he's made of. Can he be trusted? How he responds when he makes a mistake tells us far more about him than what he does at other times. I'm encouraging Miszatomic to stand up and be straightforward. Yes, this is what I did. No, I did not do that. The whole truth.
 * You are talking about how hard it is to not defend yourself. Consider how hard it is for him, this situation. He has invested a lot in being a wiki user and administrator. It's not a small thing. He screwed up. Now what? Users have done much worse than he apparently did, and they are still users, not banned.
 * I have said that I think he should be unblocked. The basis would be that there is little risk of further damage, and blocks are preventative, not punitive. An unblocking admin may set conditions. (My position is that the admin should always obtain agreement to the conditions before unblocking, not simply state them, I've seen that mistake made many times. If a user violates the conditions, the unblocking admin always has the right to reblock immediately, and may then walk away. Someone else can sort it.)
 * Think about how to move forward, how you can treat Miszatomic that will help heal rifts in the community. This is not about blame and it is not about exoneration, all of which are about the past, not the future. --Abd (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The future should be about not having an Admin that logs into vandal accounts and thinks that's okay, or is the vandal himself, or triple-votes at an RFA. All of those things are not okay, and two out of the three are claimed by Miszatomic himself. Right? -- Cirt (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. We don't want admins who log into vandal accounts, or triple-vote. That's totally obvious. That's present tense (present perfect? I forget. Ongoing action.)
 * As to the original offenses, or claimed offenses, the log-in would not be serious, just stupid. As to triple-voting, yes, serious. As to vandalizing, when they clean up their own vandalism, I'm more concerned about users who make the wiki unsafe through persistent attack, and even more about admins who do that. When people see the fracas on RfA/Kalki, or on RfA/Miszatomic (removal), some will decide they don't like the place where people write like that. I've seen this happen on Wikiversity, most sane people don't like intense conflict. Can't people just get along?
 * Well, can we? What do you think, Cirt? —This unsigned comment is by Abd (talk • contribs).
 * Yes, I'd certainly like that. Incidentally, Abed is my favorite character on Community. -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Example of your POV
You updated your evidence page to say: Misza acknowledged having logged in using the supplied vandal password.. You are writing with the perspective and framing your evidence page as if everything Miszatomic says is the truth, rather than using words like "claim" or "alleged" to note that these are not your own opinions and conclusions.
 * 1) This assumes that the vandal supplied the correct password and that the vandal was telling the truth.
 * 2) This assumes that Misza is telling the truth and logged in and is not actually the vandal.

You see why it is difficult for me to sit back and not reply to this kind of stuff?

Your evidence page is framed in a certain way and comes across as quite biased.

Abd, I do indeed wish to step back, very much so I wish to step back.

But it's quite difficult when reading POVs like this.

-- Cirt (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could please alter your comments and evidence page to remove potential bias? -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Cirt, you have no clue. I am reporting, essentially, that M acknowledges having made that edit. Just saying that without providing context would be prejudicial. I know what I am doing.

Step back, it's essential. You are interfering with community process, making serious and balanced investigation of this difficult. Miszatomic is presumably reading it all. So he acknowledges something and you immediately say, on the RfA page, how horrible it is. That's not going to encourage him to tell us the truth. It may encourage him to shut up, and then you will be blamed by a portion of the community for badgering him.

Stop. Now. That is not an order, you make your own choices, but you are damaging the wiki, now, that RfA page is becoming a train wreck, and you are risking your own standing.

The evidence page is a work in progress. Amending it is not an emergency. You may correct errors. If you correct wording to something you think is neutral, I will adjudicate there.

Basically, I see your possible objection. I also think it is not important. These nuances are not what will be of significance in the end. What is significant is detailed history, what actually happened. --Abd (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You've invited me to edit your subpage but unfortunately your subpage appears quite biased. You seem to continue to keep posting in Miszatomic's defense and replying ad infinitum in what certainly comes across as attempts to fully exonerate him. You must understand, I am trying real hard here to back away, but it becomes quite difficult when it seems there's a pile-on in favor of a user who has admitted to logging in to multiple vandal accounts he claims he didn't create. I hope you wouldn't ever log into someone else's account, vandal or no. -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mostly it is links and diffs and items out of history. If it's biased in any way, correct it. It is incomplete. So fix it. You may also call it "biased" or whatever you like on the attached Talk page.
 * You are not seeing the situation clearly. You are taking it personally. All classic wiki errors. It's obvious. --Abd (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You updated your evidence page to say: Misza acknowledged having logged in using the supplied vandal password.. -- don't you see that writing that as an assumed statement of fact is not accurate yet? We don't know if he actually did or did not do this. But you wrote it as if it's a done deal and factual. Do you see? -- Cirt (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Cirt, your POV leads you to not understand English. "Misza acknowledged X" does not assume that X is true or that the acknowledgment is true. The fact is the acknowledgement. However, we -- and a checkuser -- may now proceed to assume that the edit was his. That makes no assumption about the rest of the facts. The obvious possibility: the whole account was his from the beginning. Look, if Misza is telling the truth, he'll be verified and exonerated (of some of the claims). If he is lying, it will be exposed and his account may be toast globally, not just his admin bit. I'm encouraging him to tell the truth and I don't know what the truth is. I only know, at this point, some appearances, probably about the same as you. I've studied that enwiki checkuser, carefully. I know what's implied. And I know that mistakes can be made, and especially that users may state what they did and what they found in ways that are not accurate. Anyone can make mistakes. We find out by asking. And we are not going to ask, now, until we have more from Miszatomic.

"Acknowledged" is more neutral than "admitted." "Claimed" would be possible, but the difference is small, and carries a whiff of accusation of falsehood. Remember AGF, Cirt? Never forget AGF. As they say, AGF is not a suicide pact. It simply suggests maintaining the possibility of good faith, until that is completely destroyed. I actually don't think that will happen here. M. intended good, but slipped and fell. He has harmed himself more than anyone else. We don't yet know the full extent of what he did. Give him, and us, some breathing space. Okay? --Abd (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can agree to give breathing room if the focus is on Miszatomic, even if things are said that I think are false, or lies, or factually inaccurate. It's more difficult to give breathing room when I think false statements are being said about me, and the focus is on me, rather than the purpose of the page, itself. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Cirt, understand that if you respond, you make the focus be even more about yourself. If you defend yourself, you encourage attack. --Abd (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Reply
I agree with you that Wikiquote could use more admins.

But not if they've repeatedly logged into multiple different vandal accounts, and triple-voted at a Request for Adminship page.

Both those things are quite problematic.

-- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Cirt, you belabor the obvious. As if nobody else would even think of it.
 * You have a confusion of tenses. We need more admins, now and for the future. Whatever the admins did in the past is not the issue. If we could be confident that Miszatomic would not do these things again, we would want him on the team.
 * Can we be confident? We are not now confident, that's clear. So we are giving Miszatomic opportunity to convince us. --Abd (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I think we now have claims, from Miszatomic himself, that he says he logged into multiple different vandal accounts -- and admits to triple-voting at an RFA. We shouldn't have an admin like that. I'm certainly up to hearing more explanation of Miszatomic. But I'd also like to hear more from you about your investigation into Miszatomic, parts of your investigation that aren't simply about making me wrong. But actually about putting me out of it and looking into Miszatomic, himself. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop it! You don't have to say, with every other sentence, "triple-voting." In the discussion of history, you will come up, because so much of it involves you. But you did not cause Miszatomic to do what he did, beyond possibly contributing to an atmosphere that made him think he had to triple-vote. And that is probably not going to be addressed, except in the way I'm doing it, by attempting to move beyond it, not by blaming it on someone, not even such a convenient target as Cirt.
 * What you are doing, Cirt, is jumping ahead into consequences (admin removal) before the facts have been collected. You are not an unbiased judge of consequences. You do represent a faction in the community that would detest anyone who does some of these things. That is not the whole community, and we need the whole community. So one step at a time. --Abd (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, I beg of you, Abd, don't yell "Stop it!" at me. Please, I beg of you, don't use command form grammar with me. Please don't use exclamation points at me. It will foster a much more collaborative and professional and warm environment if you cease doing that. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Please consider ceasing behavior that is causing the focus to be on you. Please consider that I dislike you unnecessarily repeating charges against another user on my Talk page, and that, here, most of all, I might not just ask you to stop, I might tell you. The next step would be reverting your contributions here. I'd rather not do that
 * You have become informed about aspects of this case. If you want to contribute your knowledge, User:Abd/Miszatomic would be a place you can do that. Or if you don't like how I manage that, you could do the same yourself. You are responsible for what is in your user space. I'm strongly encouraging you to trust the community. It can be slow to respond, sometimes, then sometimes it more or less explodes. We need to learn how to moderate it. --Abd (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you're on the right track
Thanks for this, maybe you're on the right track, after all. -- Cirt (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)f
 * Great. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome! -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Patience
Are you sure those lines aren't about having patience? I wouldn't've added the lyrics had I thought those lines weren't about trying to be patient and hoping that patiently following a certain path will pay off. Respectfully yours, allixpeeke (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * They are peripherally about patience and incipient loss of patience, not closely enough on patience to belong on the page, my opinion. --Abd (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Authenticity
https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-62541-post-1563143.html#pid1563143 Authenticity enforcer (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)