Adam Brookes, User:Adambro asserts his custodial rights and perogatives Options

[Moulton]

From the Wikiversity Colloquium...

The alleged discretionary "rights" of Wikiversity custodians

Adambro said here,

I absolutely retain the right to use my custodian rights in accordance with what I judge to be in the interests of the project and in accordance with the views of the community.

Adambro certainly has mixed "rights" with "privileges". But that is not my main point. In essence he believes he can competently act as police, judge and jury at the same time, and at every instance that he interests himself in, just based on what he thinks Wikiversity should be, and even in the face of community opposition.

I do not know if that has ever been the consensus or custom of Wikiversity. However, from what I know from the very early days Wikiversity custodians has never been explicitly endowed with any "rights" and they only act as functionaries who would act on behalf of the community, and hence the title "custodian", in clear distinction from Wikipedia "administrator". [So please don't say we are Wikimedia blablabla and it has always been like that blablabla.] The use of the custodial tools by custodians may have changed through practice, and I would like the Wikiversity community to establish consensus on what discretions, in particular blocking others from participations, we allow our functionaries to make.

—Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 12:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

_________________

You might be better raising any concerns you have about the general use of blocks at Wikiversity talk:Blocking policy where the development of a policy regarding this can be discussed. I'm not quite sure how you conclude that I believe I can act "based on what he thinks Wikiversity should be, and even in the face of community opposition" when in the quote you highlight I specifically said that I would use my custodian rights in accordance with both "what I judge to be in the interests of the project and in accordance with the views of the community". On the issue of my "custodian rights", I refer to the ability to block as a custodian right because that is what it is widely referred to as. You can find a list of the rights that members of the Custodians group have at Special:ListGroupRights.

—Adambro 12:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

_________________

These problems are not here because of missing policies. Policies may help to solve actually problems, but on the other hands, they will build up barriers around custodians, who will no longer be possible to use their brains and fantasy, to fix problems.

—Juan de Vojníkov 12:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

_________________

I agree that would be nice to know. I'd also like to know in general what discretion anyone has to make any independent decisions. Is the impact that a decision has part of what discretion people are willing to give anyone? I believe that is usually true on other wikimedia projects. A decision to rename a resource usually only impacts the people working on the resource and the people reading the resource for example. If most people do the things that Custodians block for that would have more of a direct impact on the Wikiversity community, than if only a few people do the things that Custodians block for. Is having a direct impact a consideration as well? I think where people stand on issues that have no direct impact on them seems to vary.

—darklama 13:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

[Moulton]

Moulton rolls his eyes.

Elsewhere in the discussions about Motivation, Emotions, and Learning, I posed a question...

What is the name (or description) of the affective emotional state signaled by rolling one's eyes?

In Yiddish culture, the act of rolling one's eyes is usually accompanied by the the utterance, "Oy."

My respondents compiled this set of terms for naming the associated affective emotional state:

Dismissive with lack of interest, annoyance, impatience, exasperation, mild contempt, or disregard.

Less common responses were "Bumptious" and "Apostrophic."

Other verbal expressions included:

"Bloody Hell."

"Oy, not this again."

"Uggh."

"Gey avec." ("Go away.")

"Bugger off."

"Let's don't. (And say we did.)."

"Go fly a kite."

"Go jump in the lake."

"Giddoudahere."

"It's just a shame that on Web 2.0, when people disagree about things, there is a chance some hoary gobshite like you might be poking around to wax ad tedium on the matter."

Compare "rolling one's eyes" to "scathing glances" and giving someone "the hairy eyeball."

But the term that most intrigued me was "Apostrophic" which means "turning aside" or "turning away" (as in "disregarding" or "failing to pay attention").

The oldest reference I know of to "glancing away" as a signal of contempt is in Genesis 4:3-5.

What's fascinating about that ancient Biblical reference is that it's also the oldest reference to "Bloody Hell."

This post has been edited by Moulton: