User talk:JWSchmidt/Blog/7 September 2008

Communication involves at least two parties
John, On your comment:"This particular user (name withheld due to threats made against me) has called me a troll (in a public forum) and refuses to talk to me, leaving me with one remaining communications channel: edit summaries. I'd be happy to stop sending messages to this user by way of edit summaries if he agrees to discuss his efforts to disrupt student participation at Wikiversity." - You have freedom of speech; Others also have the right not to listen to what you say. If the other person does not want to talk to you, there is very little you can do beyond stopping talking to that person, at least for a while. Hillgentleman|Talk 13:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice that different people consider the same/different things humourous/insulting (the line between the two is often very thin, and it depends very much on the mood and mutual trust of the participants) in different times. Wikiversitians seek a diverse, civil, mature place to work; it is sometimes better to err on the side of caution. Hillgentleman|Talk 13:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying and I agree with some of it. I have shown remarkable restraint so as to "err on the side of caution". "there is very little you can do beyond stopping talking to that person" <-- The interesting thing about public forums is that I can just "talk to myself" and other people will still "hear". I can describe the actions of any person who will not talk to me and other people will see what is going on....well unless the thought police step in and remove my freedom of speech. The easiest thing in the world is for an abuser of our trust to do something that harms the project and then complain, "he's hurting my feelings" when other participants discuss the actions of the abuser. Its called "gaming the system". I agree that "different people consider the same/different things humourous/insulting" <-- which is why I'm glad I live in a country that protects my right to free speech. Many people do not want their actions to be exposed and analyzed so they find ways to prevent others from speaking. Rather than agree to discuss their behavior they whine, "He's insulting me!" How can an accurate description of another person's actions be silenced as an "insult"? That is just a way to game the system and prevent bad behavior from even being discussed. "Wikiversitians seek a diverse, civil, mature place to work" <-- I think this is true in general, but we also have participants who seek to delete and destroy the contributions of other users. We even have a participant who has openly proposed that Wikiversity prevent minorities from having a voice at Wikiversity (I'm not allowed to name "names", so do your own research). We also have a participant who admits to being here in order to silence free speech and try to get another Wikiversity participant banned. In my view, "stopping talking to" such abusive participants is not the only thing I can do. No there is much more that Wikiversity must do in order to prevent these abusers from taking control of our project. --JWSchmidt 14:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I do think this blog entry shows a fair amoun of restraint. Also, it is unreasonable for another user to label you as a "troll"; that is indeed a personal attack, and should not be tolerated.  At the same time, your blog gives off the implication that you've been victimized, and I do not feel this is so.  One thing to keep in mind:  Wikiversity welcomes all students and teachers, including deletionist ones.  The Jade Knight 09:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)