User talk:74.106.90.195

One question

 * "Moulton. one question is permitted, ask it. If you get blocked for revert warring here, tough. You could always ask by email. &mdash;Abd"

My one question is: "What hath Abd wrought?"

Moulton 16:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ask that question on User talk:Abd, if that's your one question for the day. The remainder of your questions are way too unclear, shotgun. Are you sure that's your one question? Are you aware that the answer would be more than a tome, if taken one way, so I'll talk it another, and give one example of what I made. --74.106.90.195 16:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC) (Abd)


 * That's my number one question for you, Abd. What hast thou wrought?   —Moulton 16:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, but you still get to ask one more specific question on User talk:Abd.


 * A life among the lives of ^ibaad ur-Rahmaan, with seven children and six grandchildren so far, and innumerable lives transformed by contact with me, including the gift of life itself, when I was a midwife. I have been a light and an example for those seeking light, and a darkness and an obstruction for those seeking darkness, but the light and the darkness are illusions, reflections, all reflecting the One. --74.106.90.195 16:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a more specific follow-up question. "Why didst thou create that which thou has wrought here (on Wikiversity)?" —Moulton 16:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * given that this is so easy, here is the answer: Special:Contributions/Abd. --74.106.90.195 17:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC) (Abd)
 * Abd, the first word of the follow-up question was "Why" (not "What"). —Moulton 17:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see I never responded to this clarification. My answer is, "To demonstrate how communities can cooperate effectively and efficiently." I could say why I think Wikiversity is important, "Because it's the only WMF wiki where original research, and therefore relatively open discussion, is not only permitted but encouraged. And I could say why I, personally, do this, and that would be "Because I choose to." If you want a more thorough answer, well, I'll quote the Qur'an: "If the seas were ink and the trees were pens, it would not suffice...." That's probably, for me, a bit of an exaggeration, but what's a little hyperbole among friends? --Abd 23:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Other questions to consider
Abd, if you have time for one or two more questions, please consider these as well, especially if you find your self lying awake at night with shpilkis in your genechtagazoink.

Albatross 16:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Taboo Or Not Taboo? That Is the Question.
It occurs to me that the prohibited behavior is a wretched excess of annoyance. —Albatross 23:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what it looks like to me. Someone annoys you? Block him. SBJ has been annoyed with me for a long time. I confronted what he's been doing, made it very clear. Here, Moulton, it's really funny. You are revert warring with me. Most admins would think of blocking both revert warriors, I thought someone might do that. No, he blocks me. Not you. Why? Beats me! I'm "disruptive" and you aren't? Aren't you a bit insulted, Moulton? Here you try to be as annoying as possible, make a huge project of it, and ... you get no respect. You are as annoying as an ant under the carpet. --Abd 03:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hypothesis Testing
Consider the following hypotheses:


 * H0: Everything is copacetic. No one was annoyed with Abd, and some (or most) were even amused and entertained by his antics.


 * H1: SBJ alone was annoyed. No one else was concerned, annoyed, or disturbed.  Some may even have been amused or entertained by his antics.


 * H2: Almost everyone was disturbed or annoyed by Abd's allegedly disruptive antics which they saw as impeding progress in solving important problems at hand.


 * H3: The whole escapade was an unmitigated disaster for everyone involved and an embarrassment to the project.

Feel free to add hypotheses, but do not remove any that have been suggested. To eliminate an individual hypothesis, you must expressly falsify it by providing undeniable evidence, cogent analysis, and/or coherent reasoning to demonstrate why any suggested hypothesis should be dismissed as untenable.

Moulton 11:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternate Exercise in Hypothesis Testing
In lieu of, or in addition to the above, consider this set of hypotheses:


 * HA: No one was disruptive.


 * HB: Abd alone was disruptive.


 * HC: Moulton alone was disruptive.


 * HD: Both Abd and Moulton were disruptive.


 * HE: The customary practice of blocking fellow scholars is an inherently disruptive process for all concerned.

How would you test, affirm, refute, or falsify any or all of the above set of alternate hypotheses?

Albatross 11:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of Hypothesis Testing Paradigms

 * Q1: Did anyone learn anything from last week's exercise? If so, please outline what you learned and how you became aware of something important that you didn't fully appreciate before.


 * Q2: If you answered Q2 in the affirmative, what practices do you plan to revise, going forward?


 * Q3: What are the fundamental differences between Scientific Hypothesis Testing (Martian Style) and Babysitting (Earthling Parenting Style)?

Barsoom Tork 11:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for advice
Both as an administrator and as a user assisting blocked or banned editors, here and on Wikipedia, I have successfully demonstrated self-reversion. The cleanest example was with w:User:PJHaseldine, who had been topic-banned. PJH was an expert on the Lockerbie TWA bombing, and like many experts, had gotten into conflict on WP. I'd supported the ban. However, I suggested to PJH that if he had an edit to make affecting an article under the ban, that he go ahead and make the edit, but, in the edit summary, add, "will self-revert per ban," and then self-revert. He did so, and the result was that an editor who had asked for the ban, reviewed the edit and accepted it. Thus self-reversion created a situation encouraging cooperation between two editors who had been at loggerheads. That was the design, and it worked.

Self-reversion had been proposed and approved by an arbitrator with respect to a topic ban of another editor. That editor, however, angrily rejected it. Why should he revert a perfectly good edit? He was definitely not interested in the answer: to keep ban enforcement simply by showing cooperation with the ban, even while still following w:WP:IAR to improve the project. He was not interested because complicating ban enforcement was his goal! He ended up being site-banned, and that just happened again, this time probably it's final.

Now that I'm blocked, I'm under an effective, temporary, site-ban. I know of only one cogent argument against self-reversion. If it's for a good edit, that is then restored, it has complicated the history of a page. My own view is that this complication is minor and easily understood with the "will revert per ban" messages.

However, because, at present, IP edits by a blocked editor are routinely being tolerated, I will not self-revert. However, I will consider advice here from any editor. In particular, any custodian may, presumably to simplify block enforcement, require that I self-revert when editing in noncompliance with a block. --74.106.90.195 15:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to request for advice
 American Visceral Society  Dear Abd,  Sometimes you have a gut feeling that all is not well in our society. But what can one person do? Not much. Not much individually, this is. But together we can purge the system of the rot of social detritus.  Those are the words of Dr. Irving Mazloh-Freen, the founder of the American Visceral Society. Dr. Freen is a dedicated American who deeply believes in the beneficial aspects of this visionary program. A deep thinker and planner, Dr. Freen has has been called "... one of the truly great emetics of our time."

Please joint Dr. Freen's movement today. You'll sleep better tonight.

Respectfully yours,

Wordsworth R. Moribund Acting Director

Established as a non-profit-sharing organization, the American Visceral Society is a temporal concept of IMF Worldwide Industries, Fast Feuds Division of International Malefactor and Fulminator.

At IMF, We're Into Everything.