[Wikiversity-l] Ottava is not the problem

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 07:08:43PM -0800, Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote: I comment on matters that come to my attention where I consider that the comments may be beneficial to at least one other person. The rest of the universe is free to ignore my comments, unless they are on order of "Heads up! A piano is falling here." https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bduke He started contributing sporadically to Wikiversity in 2006; but he became a rare contributor to content since around February 2008. He made a few comments in April 2010, and then again went on formal wikibreak. While he did not necessarily agree with what was being done then, a Resource had been started on treatment of newbies on Wikipedia, his fears of disruption over that did not materialize. January 28. 2011, having only one edit the previous August, since the end of April, 2010, he commented quite similarly to how he commented here, the edit summary was "Please just STOP!" He proceeded to support desysopping me. While he equally condemned Ottava, his action was actually supporting Ottava's obvious long term goal: revenge. The reason I've written this today is that I found a discussion with him where I laid out what I saw as a major long term wiki and social media problem. I've seen it since the 1980s, and BDuke is demonstrating it. Rather than repeat all that, I'll just present some links. What I'd seen many years ago was that when two users appear to be involved in a flame war, the community will knee-jerk blame both. If all one user is doing is describing the situation neutrally, it happens quite the same, people will ''assume'' that the descriptions are biased, and few people will look at the evidence. This is not much of a problem on Wikiversity any more, fingers crossed. It remains a huge problem on Wikipedia. Thekohser made a similar point with BDuke as I am making now. The philosophy is all too common: "I know what I don't like, and I don't need any evidence. I can see what is going on, I don't need to read or study." And then, in a user conduct discussion, the user !votes "Ban.or Desysop." Happens all the time. The hidden policy violation: "Thou shalt not annoy me." The problem with this arises when the annoying one is a messenger. On darklama Talk, some background: https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=&oldid=694314#Assuming_we_… then on my Talk page: https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abd&oldid=701149… If anyone other than Ottava (Jeffrey Peters) has questions, I'll respond. That includes BDuke, to whom I apologize for irritating him. Otherwise, I hope I'm done here. BDuke is a quantum chemist. He could be very useful on Wikiversity. I'ld love it if a professor of chemistry were to take an interest in the Cold fusion resource, and especially one versed in quantum chemistry. That is still a single resource, top level, and thus must be neutral, though original research is allowed. (for an example of how conflict can be handled, see the resource on Landmark Education. On Wikipedia, this would have turned into a gawd awful mess.) "Sections." The same topic can be covered as managed by individual scholars, as long as the overall presentation is neutral. I do have plenty of chemists to consult, but they don't edit the wiki.(I'm working on that!) Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (413) 584-3151 business (413) 695-7114 cell I'm so excited I can't wait for Now. > ________________________________ > From: Brian Salter-Duke <b_duke(a)bigpond.net.au> > To: wikiversity-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 2:58 AM > Subject: Re: [Wikiversity-l] Wikiversity-l Digest, Vol 67, Issue 2 > > > Look you two guys - cut it out. I now recall your battles on wikiversity > a few years back. You pissed a lot of people off then, including me, and > you are most likely pissing off a lot of people here. In that regard, > there is nothing to chose between you. Please just stop. It is not > productive.