User talk:TeleComNasSprVen/Abd

This is essentially an attack page.

Perhaps it can do some good, at least by allowing TCNSV to air his grievances. If anyone has a concern about any issue raised on the page, my Talk page is open. I ask, however, that it not be TCNSV. He is concerned about everything, and sees nearly everything as personal and directed at him.. If anyone wishes to mediate the "dispute," offers are appreciated and welcome. There is a shortage of users who will neutrally mediate. I will address one issue, he raises it.

I spotted a pattern of crosswiki abuse here so I thought it my responsibility to report to the stewards and let them decide, not knowing that the danger had passed and being a little rusty with my knowledge of the relevant policies, then I was blasted on my talkpage by Abd, how he found out about the request I do not know.

read response only if actually interested! --Abd (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
From past experience, I knew that TCNSV had a habit of biting newbies. He had, in the past, requested global locks for a user who was, bottom line, seven years old, and the writing of a seven-year-old looks like vandalism if you don't know what you are looking at. I had adopted this user on Wikiversity, successfully channeled his activity into non-disruptive creative writing, and education is the goal of Wikiversity, not just content. After a successful global lock, TCNSV had come back to request another, and the account he requested to be locked had only edited Wikiversity. There was no notice to Wikiversity. I saw it accidentally, and was able to intervene to stop it. In any case, having been a Wikiversity sysop and having handled spam and vandalism, I have SRG on my watchlist. Hence I saw TCNSV's request. That request is archived at Global lock for User:Azhar Sabri. Given TCNSV's past history, I looked at the user's contributions. TCNSV's characterization of this user was radically warped. This was far from a case for global locking. Yet sometimes stewards assume good faith in the analysis of a user, maybe look at one or two edits, and jump to conclusions. I could have posted on SRG, but that report was closed, handled based on being stale. (What if it hadn't been stale? What if those edits had been recent? The request would still have been misleading, but more dangerous.) So I compiled some history and posted it to User talk:TelComNasSprVen, warning him that he was wasting steward time, in addition to biting a newcomer. (There was also a similar RfD filed on Commons by him about this user, requesting deletion on the same -- irrelevant -- grounds. Commons policy is clear. Some of the files he nominated were deletable, some not, some had just explicitly been kept. The arguments he gave were radically irrelevant.) This was the original discussion: [1] TCNSV has attacked newcomers. This damages the wikis, long-term. When this was pointed out on his user talk page, he responded with more misleading assertions and just plain error. Throughout his contributions can be seen places where some action of his was reverted or opposed, and he argues endlessly that he was right, without any concern for the purpose of the page, well beyond the point of any utility, it's almost all personal. (at the bottom) was the discussion before he started redacting. this edit removed noncontroversial description of steward response. What that edit shows, however, is his immediate framing of the warning as "wikipoliticking." I responded with detailed examination, including coverage -- in collapse -- of his recent history, as of that time, of requests at SRG. His record was dismal. (I recommend reading this in the permanent version, it's much easier than in diff.) TCNSV then archived his talk page. The original warning had been given at 22:26, 28 December 2013‎; there was a response from a meta admin, and TCNSV had first responded at 11:57, 31 December 2013‎. The archiving began at 00:19, 1 January 2014‎, 22 minutes later. First was what would appear as normal archiving: [2], but the edit summary has "politics is dirty." And then he created a link to a new Archive.[3]. However, he had selectively archived, removing part of a warning for disruptive behavior. Was this inadvertent? That happens. So I asked him, and again PiRSquared commented.[4]. My new comment mentioned the archiving, but raised a point that should have been addressed. In continuing to claim that this user was disruptive, TCNSV had attributed vandalism to the user that was actually vandalism of the user's User page. It was a clear example of how TCNSV's agenda clouds his perception of evidence. TCNSV then explicitly blanked that further comment, with (because I obviously do not have time to engage politics with someone previously banned on enwiki, enwv, just unbanned from meta by billinghurst in order to repeatedly dig up dirt on my talkpage based on my perceived crimes on enwv. Good day sir.) We normally accord users the right to blank content on their talk page. Sometimes blanking warnings is considered disruptive, sometimes not. A blanked warning is evidence that the warning was seen. I do blank what I have come to consider trolling, on my Talk page, but without mixing it with archiving, because that can be deceptive. (I just pointed out to a WMF board member that he had mixed archiving with deletion of content, that the blanking edits should have been separate from archiving edits, and he agreed. That was a sane response to criticism of an action. And that demonstrates the difference between a WMF Board member and a wannabe "enforcer".[5]) TCNSV contributions to SRG cleaned up after that sequence. Some of them are still marginal, but nothing as radically out-of-policy so as his request for Azhar Sabri, as far as I've seen. I had not referred more than in passing to his prior Wikiversity disruption. It is true that I was sensitive to possible abuse from him that did, in fact, resemble what he had done years ago, on WV. And that behavior continues. This is not "digging up dirt," it is examination of present or ongoing behavior. I pointed out to TCNSV that it was offensive for him to demand that other users, named, not comment in a place intended for such comment, that he reserve for himself the "right of last comment." That is actually a pattern, I think, but I do not form hard and fast opinions without actually compiling or being familiar with evidence, because I know how easily quick impressions can be misleading. The sequence on his Talk page showed that he had not grown, that he is still radically sensitive to criticism, and he just demonstrated this with [6]. The close there is exactly what would be expected, and that this would be expected is why no user who understands wiki procedure would make the request. Making pointless requests is disruptive. "Help" means "action," not advice, and administrators and bureaucrats are not necessarily specially qualified as to advice, particularly on meta, where admin privileges can be relatively easily obtained, and ordinary users sometimes have far more wiki experience than the administrators. He got a steward, however, who quite properly avoided giving the advice. I read that request as fishing for some sanction against me for being "uncivil" or something like that, while creating an appearance of being thoughtful and (conditionally) contrite. He was threatening to withdraw, effectively, if he'd been wrong. And then someone inclined to see the affair that way might block me for "harassing our volunteers," "making them feel bad." I've seen it. But TCNSV harasses new volunteers, very possibly preventing them from ever maturing as such. Now, this is a lot of words in response to a short comment from him. The attached page is a pile of accusations. I can respond briefly or in detail. I respond in detail, often, because the research process is how I form my positions, I'm wary of my own knee-jerk responses. That comes from my training in the sciences. (If you want a brief response, ask for it. I comply with such requests. TCNSV just asked me a question on an RfC talk page, and I responded, "Yes." And he went ballistic.[7] To answer that question in detail would probably take me days of research and a veritable tome. And the whole discussion was out of place. My *action* there will either be supported, or not. "Speaking for consensus," however, is my main purpose in all that I do on WMF wikis. I'm not claiming to do it perfectly, any such claim would not be "speaking for consensus," it would simply be ego, and, indeed, arrogance. But substantially, that's what I do, and when I find I can't do that, I stop, I go elsewhere. Temporarily or permanently.) I write these things as I compile evidence, so I present the whole thing, so anyone who cares can follow my process. TCNSV never had any obligation at all to respond, but he is compelled by his own psychology. If I make a bad edit, he may revert it, once, without explanation if he wants. He can be right or wrong, and if we both follow normal wiki expectations, the final decision will be made by someone else. But he senses that his action is going to look bad, and so he thinks he must defend it. Which, of course, makes him look worse. It's a trap. He is not the only user to fall into this! --Abd (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not a fan of this page. You should try to resolve your disputes by discussing them. You have similar opinions on some things, why not start there? This is really close to wiki-stalking/harassment/attack page. It is much more detailed than User:Chenzw/Reports/Draubb, for example, criticizing almost everything Abd has done here. If you don't get along, maybe you should either try to, or avoid each other. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Great, PRS. My focus here is meta process, project coordination. My actions are directed toward improvement of function here, as well as protection of users and the independence of the individual projects. I have acknowledged TCNSV's positive contributions. What I suggest, PRS, is that you volunteer to mediate a single dispute. I was an experienced mediator on en.wiki. That did me no good when I was attacked, and those involved in that attack were not interested in mediation, at all, and, where it happened anyway, they ignored the results of mediation. We can see from the attached page that TCNSV sees a Huge Problem. By avoiding specifics, and by focusing on what he imagines about me, he can collect, in his mind, and on a page, a vast pile of "proof" of his thesis. It's quite visible in how he interprets that edit history. What I've seen in the past of this pattern, the person can be quite resistant to evidence, because they have such a huge pile of evidence, in their minds, as proof. I've seen each piece of the evidence be examined and dismantled, shown to be misleading, and yet the thesis stands because "there is the all the other evidence."

Underneath the thesis is "I'm right. They are wrong. I will look bad if I admit error. I must continue to believe in my rightness or I will die."

I saw a man die because he held to his beliefs like that. Every piece was defective, but ... the total, man!!! I knew him well. He was assassinated. Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get you. w:Rashad Khalifa.

In my own training, rapid admission of error is considered crucial. It's just error, everyone makes mistakes. There is no blame, there are only results, so there is no need to make excuses or defend.

In this mess, I don't know what the dispute is, that would be mediatable, but one incident does come to mind, the thing that he took to the administrative request page. I called an edit of his "offensive." Was it? Was my response improper? What do all these words mean (i.e., "offensive," "improper.")? Is there some agreement we could make that would avoid disruption? I would suggest, if you are willing, that you start with simple fact. Can we agree on related facts? Without agreement on fact, agreement on interpretation ("Offensive" is an interpretation, it does not exist in the fact of his comment, in itself. It would exist in the response of others, and even more difficult to establish, in his intentions.) There are other approaches to mediation as well. Well, understood, however, is that mediation can require a lot of words. It's not necessarily "wiki." On the other hand, sometimes it is surprisingly easy.

However, I'd let him choose the issue. --Abd (talk)