Last modified on 10 April 2015, at 18:47

User talk:Michaeldsuarez

Archives: 1, 2

Feel free to leave any messages below:


Among the missingEdit

[1]. This is hilarious. You properly removed a provocative comment implying a conspiracy, but left a provocative comment asserting that the user was "very courteous and civil in discussions." The user was capable of civility on occasion, but also was often uncivil to the point of vicious, where his reactivities were poked, such as his belief that any nudity was "sexual," and his holding on to disputes long after they were moot. He was blocked many times, on many wikis, for incivility and related disruption. What he really was, was a cute puppy. He would apologize with big eyes, sometimes soliciting an admin on IRC, and it was irresistible, he'd be unblocked. Then he'd go back to the same behavior. I'm certainly not going to bring this up there. However, that kind of comment could eventually bring that page down. I'd almost suspect it as an attempt to do that, by creating controversy. Naw, that user wouldn't do that, would he? Probably not.

I just looked at the user's talk page, before and after he blanked most of it. This is a long-term experienced user, a former Wikiversity sysop, and for a time, he bragged once, with some reason, he ran the place. He was a Wikipedia refugee, and I had supported him on Wikipedia, when he had stood up for a topic-banned teenage girl, who had been attacked. He had been blocked for incivility in that. He did not know how to stand up for someone without being uncivil! I did handle that case, though I was blocked in the middle of it because of a misunderstanding and my work was completed by another user whom I'd defended. He did a very good job, the topic ban was lifted, and the truly disruptive user behind it all disappeared.

So when I came to Wikiversity, and asked about rollback, he suggested I become a probationary custodian, so I did, with him as my mentor. Then, one day, he was grossly uncivil, and gratuitously so, based apparently on other-wiki conflict. So I warned him. He blew it off, so I blocked him for two hours. He went completely ballistic, unblocked himself, revision-deleted everything relevant, thus hiding his own self-unblock, and went to meta for an emergency desysop, lying to them about Wikiversity policy. I was desysopped because they do not investigate. That's okay, because it could easily have been fixed, and it was eventually fixed (with a new mentor!). (And a 'crat reviewed that block and concluded it was within reasonable discretion.) Meanwhile, the user's actions ultimately led to his desysop and he never forgot it, even though I did not file the process (I had drafted it in my user space as a warning, but a 'crat took it and used it), and he retaliated whenever possible. He was indef blocked at one point, and unblocked without discussion, by a friend. He always had friends. If he came back to Wikiversity today and did what he did in the past, and didn't stop when warned, his account there would be toast. Quickly. But he hasn't edited there in over a year, except for 3 edits on one day in September, all related to me, the first two were supporting a sysop at the time who was desysopped over his behavior, the last supporting the only oppose comment in a permanent custodianship discussion, from that same sysop, with a question that demonstrates why Wikiversity was greatly blessed when our "civil" user here was desysopped. He believes that admins should be doing a lot of deleting, when, on Wikiversity, we organize content, mostly we don't delete it if it is created in good faith, and sysops use a deletion template like everyone else, with a second opinion needed for deletion. He also used to block users for no good reason, just his own opinion, when he had the tools.

So, "civil and courteous," wow! Look at his talk page here! Yes, he would do a spectacular about-face, sometimes, and apologize. Problem is, he still believed he was right, and that comes out, eventually. --Abd (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Meanwhile, that listing stands, of course, as it should. There is another listing for a missed user, who was highly privileged and who had seriously burned out and was doing much damage. I was tempted to remove it, because it has only one listing. But there is no point. So what if someone misses him? Notice: in spite of all that argument on the talk page, the page process is working. Users are actively adding listings, and there are few removals. You are not going to revert war over the removal of two listings. Now, what would get "interesting" is if someone confirms a listing and then someone still removes it. If it is the original remover, that is revert warring. Naughty, naughty! The original lister, if he or she reverts that, is not restoring the same content as was originally created. We either have 2:1 for listing, or 2:2. If it's 2:1, it's obvious what should stand, until more get involved.
  • If it is 2:2, this is the sequence:
  1. A adds listing
  2. B removes.
  3. C restores listing plus signs
  4. D removes.
  5. A reverts, restoring B's edit.
  6. B reverts, restoring D's edit.
    No revert warring so far. So at 2:2, the edit says out, if the two opposed really insist.
    This could continue for a long time, and after a few iterations, it would be obvious that roughly half of the interested community wants the listing, and that the other half is attempting to suppress this. What happens at the next step:
  7. E adds and signs. 3 users are in on it.
    At this point, it meets the standard that Slaunger wanted, only with less fuss, no extra page to maintain and then transfer listings to, and incivility in this process should be addressed. It is not necessary to attack a "missed user." The person could be a horrible troll. So what? If someone somehow actually is is a horrible troll, do we need to say it? Is it in order?
  8. F removes. 3:3.
    It could get quite interesting. A and C may restore without revert warring. What is being tested: the ability of the community to discriminate between what is important and what is not. Generally, if people feel a certain way, if they are suppressed in expressing it, they are likely to resent the suppression. I have been pushing for civility rules. They would be more strongly enforced in central discussion than on user talk pages between consenting users. People need to be able to let off steam.
    What would happen, if this does not devolve into revert warring, is that one side or the other would give up. However, there is no time limit. And no rules against canvassing.
    Personally, I'd be very reluctant to dive into a series of edits like this unless I actually missed the user in some way. I wouldn't do this to please my friend. Rather, I'd encourage the friend to communicate, about the missed user, with others who might miss the user also. A "victory" here is not worth fighting over. One can "miss" a user on their talk page, usually. More powerful. But there is something about this public missing that could be healing. It will be more so if the community will learn to respect users' feelings, and not attack "wrong feelings," which any sane parent has learned not to do with their kids.... Unfortunately, many of us had parents who were not fully sane.
  • So I missed Russavia and INeverCry. That was genuine. Notice the supports pouring in for INeverCry. Does that mean that INeverCry is missed more than Russavia? No, it doesn't mean that. It could mean that more were motivated to sign the one, perhaps, and/or fewer were afraid to sign the other. --Abd (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Michaeldsuarez".