User talk:JWSchmidt/silly attacks and nonsense
Please don't use pages like this to effectively protest about Jimbo's actions. Adambro 14:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please do not reinstate this material. It isn't appropriate content for that page. Adambro 14:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
"I am currently discussing the closure of Wikiversity with the board". -Jimmy Wales
Mr. Wales claims to have been authorized by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to censor Wikiversity content, impose blocks on Wikiversity editors who have not violated any Wikiversity policy and perform emergency desysops on Wikiversity custodians when no emergency exists. If you participate at Wikiversity, you can be blocked from editing at any time without warning or discussion, and pages you create can be deleted without warning or discussion. Do not expect to be defended by the Wikiversity community since the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, acting through its agent Mr. Wales, controls content decisions at this WMF project. The authority of the Board to control Wikiversity content is documented at....er, well.....
unblock request
edit | Note: Please check your block log linked below. If there are no blocks listed, or the latest one has already expired, then you have been autoblocked. This blocked user asked that their block be reviewed, but the request was denied, Other custodians may review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.
|
- User:Mu301, you failed to provide a review of the bad block. Adambro failed to edit so as to improve the page in question, istead he violated the Wikiversity rollback policy. Adambro failed to warn me that he was going to impose a bad block by making use of false bad-faith claims about my motivations. Mu301, if you want to discuss legal theories, click "edit" on the appropriate page, your theories about what constitues a disclaimer is no basis for imposing this bad block on my editing. Please undo your edit of this page and let an honest custodian review this bad block. --JWSchmidt 15:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Please don't add nonsense to this page. Adambro 16:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- About your request, what do you mean? By the way, stop using "rollback" in violation of policy. --JWSchmidt 17:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message on my talk page. I mean exactly what I've said here, don't add nonsense to Wikiversity:Vandalism. That page is inteded to be developed into a serious vandalism policy/guidelines, it is not appropriate to use it as a venue for making silly attacks on Jimbo. Regarding my use of rollback, the policy says it is for "undoing edits which are blatantly unproductive". I would consider the changes I reverted as being such. Adambro 17:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- attacks on Jimbo <-- Attacks? Please list these attacks or retract your charge. --JWSchmidt 17:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind but I've moved your comments back here to keep this discussion in one place so it is easier for both of us to follow. What I consider to be a silly attack is what was been added to Wikiversity:Vandalism. Adambro 17:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- attacks on Jimbo <-- Attacks? Please list these attacks or retract your charge. --JWSchmidt 17:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message on my talk page. I mean exactly what I've said here, don't add nonsense to Wikiversity:Vandalism. That page is inteded to be developed into a serious vandalism policy/guidelines, it is not appropriate to use it as a venue for making silly attacks on Jimbo. Regarding my use of rollback, the policy says it is for "undoing edits which are blatantly unproductive". I would consider the changes I reverted as being such. Adambro 17:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Adambro, it wasn't nonsense, and calling it that was inflammatory, but it was radically inappropriate, and I was disappointed to see JWSchmidt (and the original editor) participating in this.
JW, please do not use guideline pages to pursue your dispute with Jimbo, it is disruptive, and so obviously so that I'm kind of glad I don't have a block button, because I'd be tempted to use it, even though I am new here. Again, please do not wikilawyer over rollback, you will be in some bad company. You have some legitimate grievances, but if you do not pursue them in legitimate ways, you will end up not being able to help, and I assume that will be a loss. Please be careful. --Abd 20:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Please ask a custodian to import pages like this from Wikipedia rather than just copying them so that the history can be preserved. Adambro 08:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I very much agree that a blocking policy would be helpful. However, like any policy, it is worthless if it isn't widely accepted by the community. That necessitates a review of the proposed policy by the community. I don't think that the proposed policy is the work of many over a number of years is adequate to declare it as policy. The views of those who haven't contributed to its development so far will be just as important when it comes to trying to enforce it. I therefore agree that it shouldn't be marked as policy just yet. Adambro 16:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see here for a discussion regarding this. Adambro 15:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)