User talk:Abd

Diego Grez return fire 18:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the background info that you provided on the Thekohser situation. Gopher65talk 13:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Leave Greg alone
Please don't harass or stalk users when this, quite obviously, is a 'guest appearance' on this project. If Thekohser works out here, fine by me.

Journalism is utterly different from encyclopedic work. You seem to miss a few points; this project de-adminned Jimbo, and, well... Let those of us who know what we're doing deal with Greg. He may make a great journalist; such is utterly different from a 'pedian. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Eh? Harass? Stalk? Based on a single friendly post to his Talk page, my only edit to Wikinews? Have you gone bonkers? I was giving Greg congratulations and some advice, that's all. My post was friendlier than yours! But I was giving him similar advice. I worry that you seem to have misread it so badly. Well, so what else is new? Lots of people around here don't read well. Some of them have high-level privileges. Good luck with Wikinews. Greg may well be a help. I'm not going to be watching, particularly, unless some flap makes noise loud enough to be heard at Wikipedia Review or Wikiversity, where I helped arrange for Greg to be unblocked. He was great, highly cooperative, pioneering a technique for efficient demonstration of cooperative and constructive editing while blocked. Without true block evasion.


 * I created this technique for Wikipedia, with the case of an editor who was topic banned, but who was being dinged for making "harmless spelling corrections." He was actually trolling, but that wasn't proven till later. I came up with a method for him to *suggest* the spelling corrections, and far more efficiently than what people had been telling him he should do. (This was a topic ban, from article pages only, and he was being told to suggest the spelling corrections on Talk, which he correctly rejected as preposterously cumbersome. So I suggested he make the change, but self revert "per ban of [his name]." He was outraged. Self-reversion would have represented cooperation with the ban, and that was the last thing he wanted to do. He was ultimately site-banned, when it became plain what game he was playing. He was trying to complicate ban enforcement, being able to attack any administrator who dared to block him for making a spelling correction. Self-reversion would have not complicated ban enforcement, all it would have taken was a recognition that self-reverted edits represent a user taking on the burden of "reverting the edits of a banned editor." I.e., himself. Because self-reverted edits don't stand in the content, they are merely suggestions existing in history, there is no reason to enforce a ban based on them. Just to maybe check to see that the revert was real and not phony. Which is quick.


 * I then suggested this for another topic banned editor. He had been totally depressed at being topic banned, but he was indeed a difficult editor. I'd supported his topic ban, though only as a temporary measure. He was a world-class expert in his field, that he'd been banned from. I suggested self-reversion and he then made a major edit to the article under ban, and then reverted himself "per ban." The edit was reviewed and almost completely accepted, quickly, by the very editor who had originally sought for him to be banned. Self-reversion had encouraged voluntary cooperation between two otherwise opposing editors.


 * So why didn't this catch on? Well, long story. The short version is "politics."


 * However, well over a year later, while I was a probationary custodian at Wikiversity, and I was approached by Greg for assistance at dealing with his block there -- it had been placed by Jimbo himself -- I first arranged for him to set up an alternate account and tell me what it was. He did so, and I blocked it immediately (he knew I would do this), but this allowed him Talk page access without first dealing with the global lock. Another sysop greeted him and suggested that he contribute content through his Talk page, which I knew and he knew was way too cumbersome. I suggested self-reversion. That he edit by IP, with a summary including "Will self-revert per ban of Thekohser." Thus openly identifying himself and cleaning up after himself, immediately. It worked, and he was allowed to do this for several weeks. Then another admin decided that "the experiment was over" and blocked the IP. But I had unblocked, based on the positive behavior. The admin reblocked, basing that on a supposed lack of consensus to unblock (which is the reverse of the norm, as the community later confirmed.) Being now equipped with a history of positive contributions, I was able to question this block, and the ultimate result was that a 'crat did the delinking as you did and unblocked him. It worked perfectly. During the trial, several editors followed his contributions and reverted them back in, having reviewed them.


 * I'm now experimenting with a more difficult case (and I'm not an administrator now, and I don't need to be), an editor who is far less cooperative, but also who has long been recognized as being potentially a very valuable contributor. The point is that it's actually not difficult to handle positive contributions from sometimes-disruptive editors and, in fact, it's done all the time on Wikipedia. Unless they have been blocked! Somehow "block evasion" becomes a terrible crime that must be punished, or else the sky will fall. No, blocks should be enforced but only as needed. I.e., efficiently. I've argued that the standard policy that edits of blocked editors may be reverted on sight is a good policy, but that, then, any registered editor should be able to review them and bring them back in if they are decent contributions. I've now done this for years, and even though occasionally I get yelled at for "encouraging block evasion," I have never been seriously threatened over it. Yes, I "encourage block evasion," but only through an editor making good contributions. Some people have forgotten the goal of the project and the purpose of blocking. Not surprising, some people are not very capable of following such an abstraction as "if a rule prevents you from improving the project, ignore it." It blows their fuses. They like that "rule" when they think it gives them freedom, but hate it when a banned editor reads it and says, "This means that I *must* edit when I see that correction to make...."


 * Most disruptive editors will not go for self-reversion as a device. They won't want to cooperate by acknowledging the block. They would rather sock and try to remain undetected, they don't want anyone reviewing their edits. They cause disruption and wasted effort, and this can sometimes be part of their motive. A blocked editor who self-reverts is an asset, and the quid pro quo should be that any IP being used for such editing should not be blocked, unless there is a very good reason, such as edits -- even if self-reverted -- that "out" editors, revealing private information. IP should only be blocked if it is being used for inflicting actual harm (which can include complicating block or ban enforcement.) --Abd (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies
No need to go on at such length.

I know a little of Greg's history with WMF projects, and I'd like to see him find his feet here and steer clear of areas where a cross-wiki posse might form.

If he can get on with other contributors here, he's quite welcome. But, that said, none of the regulars have time to de-escalate drama and reform people. You're thrown in at the deep end, and expected to get on with it.

My comment, in your eyes, may seem harsh; better that than a slowly escalating drama.

So, let's leave Greg to find his feet on-project. The standard of writing expected here is higher than on enWP, and we use FlaggedRevs. Also, timescales are painfully tight as, facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news.

I think Greg can cope, but he should never expect the same 'gentle' treatment as on WP. Wikinews lacks manpower to mollycoddle; you're expected to be a self-starter. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. No problem. I'm not invested in Greg being useful here, that's between him and you. (But he was not treated particularly gently on WP!) I do understand that the conditions here are very different! Flagged Revs is pretty interesting, I was hoping for it long ago on WP. --Abd (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I chanced upon this conversation. It may interest you to know that Greg, if he proves himself, would not be the first user to come to Wikinews and make something of themselves after a community ban elsewhere. Our very own Diego was banned on enWP (as I delight in reminding him, I was the blocking admin). He's proved an industrious contributor and was able to use his work here and elsewhere to earn a second chance on enWP. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, I'm quite aware of that, which is one reason why I became involved in this issue. Diego knows, we worked together on Wikiversity (and I know his history). --Abd (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh?

 * Only after rollback, I see it's you - I remember the above. So, I assume you meant well. I have no idea what's going on at Wikiversity (beyond serious drama) but please, please, please keep WV disputes there. I really don't want problems to go cross-wiki if it can possibly be avoided. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * thanks, BRS. Fascinating that the above discussion was in place, I'd totally forgotten it. Don't worry, I'm not bringing WV disputes here, per se. Diego's user page on WV suggested communication here. He made a disruptive edit at Wikiversity, I pinged him about it on his Talk page. Then, based on other conversations, at WV and at meta, and what is written on his user page, I made the comment on his talk page here. I'm surprised to see it rolled back as vandalism, it wasn't. No harm, however, I assume he'll see it anyway. I'll say, though, I'd not want to see my own Talk page redacted that way unless you knew, for sure, that it was harassment. Good luck, see you around. --Abd (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)