User talk:Mu301/Archive 5

From Wikiversity

Contents 1 Explicit images on the commons 2 WV:RFD archive 3 on language, and other topics 4 Inviting things that probably shouldn't be invited 5 confrontation

[edit] Explicit images on the commons

Thanks for the info on my talk page Mike. Hope yu don't mind me inserting this message at the top. I'm still working out best ways to communicate through talk pages, and adding talk topic in reverse order strikes me as slightly more efficient.

Yesterday I did spend a deal of time looking through the ranage of images on Commons and seeing how many were up for deletion.. it seems that images over a year old had some repetitive requests and denials, and recent images within 2 months had nither discussion of requests. It seems that people may have given up requesting? I now I was put off by the repeated denials, as I wouldn't want to be drawn into a debate over deletion.

Which leads me to wondering how to manage such content if it is going to continue to exist? If something gets listed as a bad image.. does that also hide it from view on all pages (not just history?). Ideally, we need a way where we can hide images from view so that users have to click past a warning page to see the images. --Leighblackall 21:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WV:RFD archive

Hmmm, yes, I see and agree, maybe I was a bit fast there - thinking more from my POV of resolved ones being distracting than keeping decisions easier for others to see/find. Will slow down. Thanks. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] on language, and other topics

"I have a complaint about the language that you have been using" <-- I use words that I know the meaning of and I always make an effort to use them correctly. In light of the many false accusations you have published about me you should familiarize yourself with the meaning of the word defamation. Also, you should think about the difference between "name calling" and providing an accurate description.

Are you saying that "thug" is an accurate description? Are you saying that "thug" is not defamation? Can you explain how "thug" is an accurate description and not defamation? I think expecting anyone to consider or think about it is rather unreasonable when you haven't explained/expressed your reasoning. -- darklama  14:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Assume Good Faith" <-- Here is a chance for you to practice your creative writing. Provide me with a reason why I should assume that you acted in good faith by publishing a large number of absurdly false claims about me. Give me a reason why I should assume that you acted in good faith by pretending that your false accusations justify removing my custodianship. --JWSchmidt 23:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Cary Bass made the decision to remove the tools. Do you expect mikeu to be able to explain why Cary Bass made that decision? If you want to know the justification for the removal you need to ask Cary Bass. Only Cary Bass knows why Cary Bass made the decision to remove the tools. I think you should stop deflecting Cary Bass' decision on other people. I didn't make the decision, mikeu didn't make the decision, and SB_Johnny didn't make the decision. Cary Bass made the decision. -- darklama  14:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but that's not correct, Darklama. The desysopping was done by unanimous consent of Wikiversity's four bureaucrats. Cary did act as consultant during the process, but things weren't nearly bad enough to justify foundation-level action that bypassed the principle of "home rule". The decision to desysop lies squarely on the shoulders of the 4 'crats. --SB_Johnny ^talk 19:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was a foundation-level action. A steward can desysop a user, while bureaucrats cannot, so it was a steward that made the decision. I don't know what the steward policy is on the matter, but I'm sure a level of decision making was involved by the steward in deciding whether there involvement and action was within any policies they are suppose to follow. The steward involved could probably have decided that more involvement from the community was needed first. Does steward policy obligate stewards to take action if there is unanimous consent by all of a project's bureaucrats? Since neither I nor JWS know the details involved in the steward's decision, I think the best way to find out is to ask the steward involved. Asking the steward involved would provide more insight and info then there is now. At the very least it would confirm that unanimous consent by bureaucrats is all that is needed for stewards to act. -- darklama  19:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikiversity" <-- Does this explain why you signed your name to a large number of absurd accusations against me, accusations that not only ignored good faith, but did so in favor of maliciously fabricated falsehoods? I'm sickened by the Ruling Party's skill at gaming the system. The wielders of the mighty ban hammer do not have to assume good faith, only the little people must, even while they are being abused. Let's put that into written policy and explain it on the main page. --JWSchmidt 21:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying you think mikeu's intent was to harm you and that mikeu took pleasure in harming you?

defamation: a malicious attack.

malicious: of, pertaining to, or as a result of malice or spite.

malice: intention to harm, to take pleasure in the misfortune of others, feeling a need to see others suffer.

spite: to take pleasure in hurting others.

I think believing mikeu's involvement was done with the intent to harm you is bad faith. I think believing mikeu took pleasure in harming you is even a worse form of bad faith. However I think not taking the time to express/explain how you think mikeu's intent is to harm you and why you think mikeu took pleasure in doing so is possibly the worse form of bad faith I've seen so far. Can you explain why you think mikeu's intent is to harm you? Can you explain why you think mikeu takes pleasure in harming you? -- darklama  14:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Inviting things that probably shouldn't be invited

I don't think this comment will lead to anything positive. I think having a discussion of policy (and its enforcement) is a Very Good Thing, but I don't think it's going to happen if you (or I) take the bait and allow it to become yet another discussion about JWS's spiel. Just sayin, eh? --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] confrontation

Part of the problem is that I'm not on the mailing list for the Ruling Party's daily newsletter, so I do not know what the talking points are for each discussion. I still think Wikiversity:Censored would be a useful policy page. We could put at the top: "Never mention the policy violations of admins." My comment at the Colloquium provided useful perspective for the discussion. I would have said more, but in the current atmosphere of intimidation I felt it best to keep my comment brief. Unlike the Ruling Party, I think it is healthy for a wiki community to discuss its problems rather than try to prevent them from being discussed. How does it help the collaborative spirit of Wikiversity when policy violators are made into custodians and told "good job"? Is anything short of saying "good job" to policy violators "needlessly confrontational"? --JWSchmidt 03:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)