User talk:Jeroen N

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hoi Woodcutterty,

Ik zag dat je pagina Atelier 8 genomineerd hebt om te verwijderen met als reden, reclame. I.p.v. de pagina te verwijderen zou ik willen voorstellen om de inhoud dusdanig aan te passen dat het een objectieve beschrijving is van hetgeen je in Haarlem zou kunnen doen aan workshops.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Tim Ruijters, Timboliu (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Wat er te doen is in Haarlem is niet iets wat op Wikiversiteit hoort, meneer Ruijters. Met vriendelijke groet, Woodcutterty (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Eens, ik heb e.e.a. verplaatst naar Wikivoyage. Timboliu (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Woodcutterty[edit]

Ik zie nu dat ik inderdaad veel lege pagina's heb aangemaakt. Bedankt voor de grote schoonmaak, die was nodig :-), Timboliu (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Reageren op opmerkingen[edit]

Woodcuttery,

Ik zag je vraag over artikel bestuursorgaan. Ik weet alleen niet hoe ik op deze vraag kan reageren. Ik heb de tekst onder 'vragen' weggehaald. Mvg, Tim, Timboliu (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ik begrijp niet waarom er vragen op een pagina staan. Op Mandatering: analyse van wetten zie ik ook een vraag staan over waarom delegatie aan ondergeschikten niet mag. Ik heb daar wel een antwoord op, maar waar zou ik dat kwijt moeten? Woodcutterty (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Woodcuttery, deze pagina is onderdeel geweest van een leerproject over mandatering. Ik vind het eigenlijk zonde om de informatie verloren te laten gaan, maar de pagina is nu niet goed leesbaar. Kun je mij helpen om deze pagina leesbaar te maken? Om je concrete vraag heb ik niet zo direct een antwoord. Als jij een suggestie hebt. Ik zal zelf ook eens kritisch naar deze pagina kijken. Timboliu (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Ik heb daar eigenlijk niet zo'n behoefte aan. Ik heb een heel ander beeld bij wat de Wikiversiteit qua inhoud zou moeten bevatten dan u. Woodcutterty (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Oke, dat kan natuurlijk. Wanneer ik hierover op de Engelstalige wikiversity lees, dan lijkt er veel vrijheid te zijn m.b.t. het inrichten van een leerproject. Zo lees ik het volgende: "a learning project is whatever you want it to be. A learning project can be a page if you would like it to be. The "learning project" is a bottom-up concept, not a top-down concept; nobody from above imposes an idea on you of what it is you have to create; it is the ordinary users at the "bottom" who explore the possibilities of the wiki for creating educational resources the way they want them to be." (bron: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Learning_projects#What_is_a_learning_project.3F). Overigens ben ik wel van mening dat content wel leesbaar moet zijn voor buitenstaanders en dat is in dit geval niet zo. Ik hoor graag een keer meer over uw visie Mvg, Tim, Timboliu (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Ik ben van mening dat Wikiversiteit cursussen zou moeten bevatten. Eventueel de Wikiversiteit indelen in "faculteiten" en "departementen" (vgl. Wikibooks), waarop je cursussen aanbiedt ingedeeld in lessen. Een cursus zou moeten aanvangen met uit te leggen wat de cursus inhoudt en wat de leerdoelen zijn ("aan het eind van deze cursus zul je in staat zijn om ..."). Ik krijg het gevoel uit uw overlegbijdragen, hier en op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia, en uit de huidige inhoud, dat u alles op de Wikiversiteit wilt neerzetten wat maar enigszins in verband kan worden gebracht met de woorden "leerzaam" en "leren", en dat er daarom bijvoorbeeld allerlei, met alle respect, onzin over actualiteiten op staat. Het overgrote deel van de huidige inhoud zou wat mij betreft weg kunnen. Woodcutterty (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Departementen, faculteiten en lessen komen op mij erg 'schools' over. Ik denk dat leren niet alleen het terrein is van onderwijsinstellingen. M.b.t. tot uw opmerking over het verwijderen van 'onzin' deel ik wel uw mening. Alleen hoe stel je vast wat onzin is? Wat voor u onzin is, is voor mij waardevolle informatie. Mvg, Tim, Timboliu (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Het maakt mij niet zo veel uit hoe het genoemd wordt, het punt is dat er totaal geen infrastructuur is. Maar u vindt dus niet dat de Wikiversiteit lessen zou moeten aanbieden? Wat dan wel? Woodcutterty (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Lessen aanbieden lijkt me een uitstekend idee. Ik denk echter dat leren, kennis uitwisselen niet alleen mogelijk is d.m.v. lessen. Er zijn andere leervormen denkbaar. Wat mij betreft laten we het aan de leercirkels (op de Engelse wikiversiteit wordt gesproken over learning groups) hoe ze hun leerproject inrichten. Het doel hoeft, wat mij betreft, niet altijd een 'les' te zijn met een duidelijk omschreven doel. Mvg, Tim Timboliu (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Er dient natuurlijk wel een duidelijk onderscheid te bestaan tussen Wikiversiteit en Wikipedia. Een artikel als Aldi heeft niets met leren te maken en hoort m.i. dan ook niet op de Wikiversiteit thuis. Leercirkels en -projecten zeggen mij overigens helemaal niets. Woodcutterty (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Op dit punt verschillen we van mening. Het doel van leerproject bedrijven is o.a. om inzicht te krijgen in de ontwikkelingen m.b.t. supermarkten. In het leerproject zijn we niet geïnteresseerd in encyclopedische informatie, maar in bijvoorbeeld trends en het duiden van deze trends. Ontwikkelingen bij individuele bedrijven zijn van belang om trends te kunnen signaleren. Wellicht is de informatie die op dit moment op pagina Aldi staan niet het meest duidelijke voorbeeld. In tegenstelling tot Wikipedia kun je niet alleen naar het artikel kijken, maar is de context van belang. Zie ook bullet 2 op pagina https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Learning_projects#What_is_a_learning_project.3F. Mvg, Tim, Timboliu (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Dat klinkt meer als het doen van onderzoek dan als iemand proberen iets te leren. Ik zie niet hoe een pagina als Aldi zou passen binnen een "collection of pages devoted to learning". Op Bedrijven staat: "In dit leerproject kun je informatie vinden over meer dan 150 bedrijven en instellingen vinden." Mijns inziens heeft dit niets te maken met wat de Wikiversiteit zou moeten zijn.
Het lijkt mij handig om samen met andere gebruikers te discussiëren over wat Wikiversiteit wel en niet zou moeten zijn, om zo een duidelijke afbakening te maken tussen de Wikiversiteit en de zusterprojecten. Als we dat hebben bepaald kunnen we een infrastructuur (naamruimtes) opzetten en van daaruit kan inhoud worden toegevoegd. Een goede infrastructuur is m.i. essentieel wil dit project enige kans van slagen krijgen. Misschien is het handig een pagina op te zetten zoals de Kroeg op Wikipedia, zodat we een centrale plaats hebben om te discussiëren? Woodcutterty (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Volgens mij past het doen van onderzoek, learning by doing, elkaar vragen stellen, uitstekend in de doelstellingen van de wikiversiteit. En lesmateriaal maken ook. M.b.t. je opmerking over de zusterprojecten ben ik het eens. Je zult moeten bepalen welk zusterproject het meest geschikt is. Ik denk dat leerproject bedrijven en daaraan gelieerd leerproject markten het beste passen op de wikiversiteit. In die leerprojecten is het doel niet om te komen tot encyclopedische content. We willen ontwikkelingen registeren, duiden en bediscussiëren. Ik heb de doelstelling aangepast, want deze was inderdaad onduidelijk. Waar we van mening verschillen is dat je centraal zou moeten bepalen welke richting de wikiversiteit op moet gaan. Op de Engelse wikiversiteit staat expliciet dat de wikiversiteit een bottum-up proces is. In de leerprojecten experimenteren de leergroepen met verschillende leervormen. Het doen van onderzoek kan een leervorm zijn. Een kroeg vind ik trouwens een uitstekend idee. Weet jij hoe we die kunnen opzetten? Kunnen we een kopie maken van de opzet op Wikipedia? Timboliu (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright Violation[edit]

Beste Woody,

Op grond van copyright violation heeft u gisteren een aantal pagina's verwijderd. Is het mogelijk om te citeren uit bijvoorbeeld kranten. Ik ben me aan het verdiepen in de APA-normen (zie ook wikiversiteit/regels. Bent u bekend met deze normen? en weet u toevallig wat de richtlijnen zijn vanuit wikimedia? Timboliu (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Ik ben bekend met deze normen, maar hanteer ze zelf niet. Het betreft slechts een standaard voor bronvermelding en als jurist hanteer ik hiervoor de Leidraad voor juridische auteurs. Citeren is mogelijk op grond van artikel 15b van de Auteurswet, onder de voorwaarden dat:
  1. het werk waaruit geciteerd wordt rechtmatig openbaar gemaakt is;
  2. het citeren in overeenstemming is met hetgeen naar de regels van het maatschappelijk verkeer redelijkerwijs geoorloofd is en aantal en omvang der geciteerde gedeelten door het te bereiken doel zijn gerechtvaardigd;
  3. artikel 25 in acht wordt genomen; en
  4. voor zover redelijkerwijs mogelijk, de bron, waaronder de naam van de maker, op duidelijke wijze wordt vermeld.
U voldeed hieraan niet. Allereerst betrof het geen citaten, althans waren die niet als zodanig afgebakend. Het letterlijk overnemen van een artikel of hele passages uit een artikel met vermelding van de bron is iets anders dan citeren. Bovendien waren de citaten niet in lijn met wat redelijkerwijs geoorloofd is, gezien het hele passages en soms bijna hele artikelen betrof, zonder enige vorm van context. Citeren is niet bedoeld als alternatief voor het zelf schrijven van een tekst, maar moet een bepaald doel dienen. Het is altijd beter om de tekst in uw eigen woorden te schrijven en de bron te vermelden. Met vriendelijke groet, Woodcutterty (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Bedankt voor deze informatie. Ik zal er in het vervolg op letten. Groet, Tim Timboliu (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Content aangepast[edit]

Beste Woody,

Op pagina grondwet heb je een aantal rode actiepunten weggehaald. Wat is de reden van deze aanpassing?

Met vriendelijke groet,

Tim Ruijters, Timboliu (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hallo meneer Ruijters,
Ik heb "TD: zoek meer info over het IVIR" verwijderd omdat 'IVIR' staat voor 'Instituut voor Informatierecht' en dit niets te maken heeft met de grondwet. "Nog uitzoeken: In welk artikel is de scheiding der machten geregeld?" heb ik verwijderd omdat dit een nutteloze zoektocht is. De scheiding der machten is in geen enkel artikel geregeld.
Mvg,
Woodcutterty (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Oke, leerzaam. Bedankt voor uw uitleg. Timboliu (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Cirque de Soleil[edit]

Waarom is er op onderstaande pagina sprake van copyvio? https://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cirque_de_Soleil Mvg, Tim Ruijters, Timboliu (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Omdat u de inhoud letterlijk uit een boekje heeft overgepend. Woodcutterty (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Vervolg[edit]

Hallo Woodcutterty, Omdat je in de voorbije weken op Beta Wikiversity actief bent geweest dit bericht. Vandaag heb ik op Beta Wikiversity moderatorrechten gekregen (custodian). Tevens heb ik daar een verwijderprocedure, nominatiesjabloon en nominatiepagina ingericht. De verwijderprocedure is vergelijkbaar met die op nl-wiki:

  • Je nomineert een pagina ter verwijdering met {{Weg}}.
  • Je plaatst vervolgens op Wikiversity:Te verwijderen pagina's een link naar de genomineerde pagina + argumentatie waarom de pagina beter verwijderd kan worden.
  • Gedurende twee weken hebben gebruikers de tijd om hier eventueel op te reageren met argumenten.
  • Na twee weken zal een custodian (ik nu dus) de nominatie beoordelen op basis van de primaire uitgangspunten van Wikiversity, richtlijnen en de gegeven argumenten.

Vermeld zeker in de eerste maanden zo duidelijk mogelijk waarom een pagina beter verwijderd kan worden, zodat zo veel mogelijk mensen het waarom begrijpen. Tevens lijkt het mij het beste als er meerdere pagina's bestaan met hetzelfde probleem en dezelfde nominatiereden, die tegelijk te nomineren, zodat de discussie niet meermaals wordt gevoerd. Ik hoop dat we met elkaar Beta Wikiversity zo goed kunnen opschonen van zaken die daar niet thuishoren. Ik zal proberen dagelijks de nominaties te bekijken, maar mocht het mij ontschieten, laat het me dan gerust weten. Groetjes - Romaine (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Weg template gebruiken[edit]

Woodcutterty,

Is het mogelijk om de weg-template te gebruiken, dan heb ik wat meer tijd om de content te kopiëren naar mijn eigen omgeving. Alvast bedankt, Timboliu (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Het is mogelijk, maar niet zinvol. Een weg-template is niet bedoeld om u tijd te geven content naar elders te kopiëren, maar is gereserveerd voor pagina's die niet voldoen aan criteria voor directe verwijdering en in gewijzigde vorm misschien behouden zouden kunnen worden. Een pagina als "Wereldreis met camper" behoeft niet op de verwijderlijst te worden geplaatst. Mvg, Woodcutterty (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Your comment on Babel[edit]

Woodcutterty, you responded to a lengthy post by Romaine on Babel. He has been revert warring to keep my responses off of that page. He is totally out on a limb about that, he has no authority to do that, and he's already been cautioned against continuing this battle by two sysops, including on Wikiversity:Request custodian action#Block abusive editor Abd. But I wanted to respond to your comment, and doing it there would provoke him to more revert warring. So I'm copying your comment here. You may, of course, remove this, it's completely up to you. No action is required.

(after edit conflict) In all honesty I didn't care to read up on everything leading to this message (it would please me a lot if you all could write shorter and more to the point replies). From what I understand, user Abd's main problems are with the mass deletion of over 5000 pages created primarily by user Timboliu and the way the deletion process is set up. I also see accusations of canvassing and a conspiracy behind Romaine's custodianship.
Let me first state that in my opinion, even though different languages are hosted on beta-wikiversity, this does not mean the Dutch community cannot set up its own deletion policy. I don't know how this is done on other projects, but on Dutch projects like the Dutch Wikipedia (which I fully understand is not the same as Wikiversity, just so), deletion (and deciding not to delete) is a sysop prerogative. While he takes into account input from the community, it is up to the sysop to decide. It is also very normal to have two ways to request deletion: speedy or deletion discussion. On the Dutch Wikipedia we do not have a process similar to "proposed deletion", nor do I think it is necessary to implement such a policy on the Dutch Wikiversity. If anything, deletion discussion limits rather than expands the power of a custodian, as whether or not a page qualifies for speedy deletion has to be interpreted strictly.
Given community consensus on the deletion of the pages, undeleting them is, in my opinion, out of the question. I say this having seen almost all of the deleted pages and having come to the conclusion that they absolutely lack educational value. It is definitely not up to an outsider who does not comprehend the Dutch language to review all deletions. We have placed our trust in Romaine as a custodian and expect him to abide by the guidelines we set up. All deleted pages have been nominated by a member of the Dutch community. If we have reason to suspect Romaine has abused his tools - which we do not - we will request desysop. Under no circumstance will we have an outsider review all the decisions he has made.
Concerning finally the custodianship itself. The Dutch Wikiversity has for some time been subject of discussion on our IRC channel (#wikipedia-nl). There has, however, never been a plan to attribute custodianship to Romaine with the goal of breaking down the Dutch Wikiversity. It was his personal decision to submit a candidacy while some users, myself including, were already nominating pages for speedy deletion (primarily empty pages or pages with copyright problems), which were handled by Vogone at the time. It was only after Romaine became a custodian that a second deletion process, modeled after the deletion process on the Dutch Wikipedia, was set up and other users started participating.
I am convinced that the deletion of all these pages was absolutely necessary and that we needed a fresh start if we ever wanted the Dutch Wikiversity to become an independent language version. I am of the belief that the content as it was was deterring potential users from participating in a constructive manner. Rather than undeleting all these pages (again, out of the question if you ask me), I believe it is now time to focus on creating an infrastructure and actual content.
I apologize if any of my assumptions are wrong, but as I said, I do not have the patience to read up on everything that was said so far. Woodcutterty (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I want to clear up some misunderstandings. There was a massive problem on the Dutch Wikiversity, i.e., the collection of Dutch pages here. That problem was, as you know, discussed off-wiki, both on IRC, and, what I've seen, on wikimedia-l.

I've been looking for evidence of attempts to handle it here through normal process; when I looked for it, I could find no significant, maintained attempt. However, you say you were submitting speedy deletion requests, and they were being handled by Vogone. That's normal. I couldn't find this, perhaps because the pages were deleted! However, it's normal when speedy deleting pages, to notify the user, and I didn't see anything more than this from Vogone, which came June 22. Then there is a comment from you, July 1, after the Romaine custodianship had already been submitted.

I certainly do not know the details of how it came to be that Romaine applied for custodianship here, but the voting shows clear evidence that there was what could be called "off-wiki coordination" -- or "canvassing." There must have been an announcement somewhere. That does not mean that every supporter came through that, but the timing evidence is too strong to be a coincidence.

That is not necessarily contrary to policy, but such should be disclosed. There was an already-established agenda, of a kind, a definition of the "problem" as being Timboliu, and this was not disclosed in the candidacy, and Timboliu, himself, eagerly welcomed that candidacy, having no clue what was in store for him. That is shown on a page that I rescued, in my user space, User:Abd/Plan 2014. That page was just deleted by Romaine, he is reaching way out of the Dutch Wikiversity; the page did not have a Dutch Wikversity category on it, and was not, as he claims in the deletion reason, the target of a community deletion request.

Romaine has clearly abused his tools. I would not make that claim about the deletions themselves, until -- possibly -- after I requested he stop, pointing out his involvement.

At that point, only a handful of pages remained to be deleted. There was no need for him to continue to act. The clearest abuses, however, are not those deletions, because there could be a difference of opinion as to whether or not the community had a consensus on the pages (I've claimed that, with some of the pages, there was no such expressed community consensus.) These are the clearest abuses:

  • Protection of my user talk archive, after reverting me there, to his preferred version.
  • Deletion of my user page, the one mentioned above. There was no community request for that page deletion. It was not a part of the Dutch Wikiversity. (It was not in the category). It was independently copied to that page, while the original page was in Timboliu user space.

Then there are abuses that could be considered "conduct unbecoming of a sysop."

  • Massive, tendentious argument, such as the report on Babel.
  • Revert warring with me on my user talk page, and my user archive, and on Babel, in each case violating standard wiki traditions. (i.e., normally, en.wiki has the clearest guidelines on this, a user may remove any unwanted content from their user talk page, it is well-established. However, removing comments from other users from community pages is strongly discouraged unless those comments violate policy, which doesn't apply.)
  • Threatening to block me for reporting on what had been done, and commenting on general Wikiversity traditions, where I'm an expert, and as requested by another Beta custodian.

However I have not filed any request for desysop. He has now given me plenty of easy-to-see evidence, should I decide to do that. I requested that The Banner restrain him. It now appears that, after filing a Request for custodian action on this, and getting negative response from a custodian (matching what another custodian had previously advised Romaine), The Banner has finally done what I suggested, and "tapped him on the shoulder," with [1].

I have not claimed, anywhere, that the Dutch community cannot set up its own deletion process, and, in fact, the basic idea is sound. The process that was set up was defective in certain ways, that I've pointed out, but the Dutch community, has the right even to set up defective process! However, just as the English-speaking users on en.wikiversity do not have the right to exclude users from en.wv, just because they are not fluent in English, neither does a specific Beta community have that right. The problems I pointed out are language-independent, and have to do with the general principle that sysops don't have superior rights over content, but only serve the community, as shown in deletion discussions. What I did, among other things, was to analyze the actual process used. In very few cases did I find a very clear deletion consensus, but, in most cases, a proposal, no discussion, and then action exclusively as decided by Romaine. Romaine has claimed that this process is routine on Dutch wikis. I'm astonished, if it is. I've never seen anything like it on any wiki, and I've long been globally active. I'd be happy to look at actual process if I'm incorrect about this.

The actual process in some cases showed a different consensus (not "delete") on certain pages, which Romaine ignored. If the community active on the Dutch Wikiversity is willing to accept that, and especially if Timboliu accepts that, it is no longer my business. I do not intend to be active on the Dutch Wikiversity. My long-term interest is the Wikiversity concept itself, which includes learning-by-doing. Our product is not just useful pages, it is education itself. I.e., Timboliu was important, more important, in fact, than a few pages!

What we have learned on en.wikiversity is that we can engage with users, and organize content with their cooperation. In the case of what Timboliu had done, here, he's doing some things like this on en.wikiversity. We will not allow it to build up to the levels seen here; the basic problem here was lack of any other substantial Dutch participation, and especially no participation by any users familiar with the Wikiversity mission. For three years, few told him there was any problem, so he believed it was all okay. It wasn't okay.

Come of his pages on en.wikiversity will be deleted, none with any substantial content. Pages will be merged, moved underneath other resources -- Wikiversity allows subpages in mainspace -- or moved to user space where the user can work on them until they are ready for mainspace. Some of the deleted content here was clearly usable, the deletion discussions show that. Most probably would be deleted on en.wikiversity, the same as here. But we go about it very differently. Timboliu was actually quite cooperative, here, and he's been the same there. I doubt that we would need anything more than speedy deletion tags, or sometimes "proposed deletion." We rarely need formal deletion discussions any more.

And yet the wiki is gradually being cleaned up. With no disruption or conflict. Here, Romaine has claimed that en.wikiversity is "full of crappy pages." If so, I'd request he tag them with speedy deletion tags. He'd get a decision, quickly. There are such pages there. But, generally, no single user whose contributions could be combed to tag all of them. --Abd (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. Stop your writings, they aren't of use for anyone on this wiki.
  2. Your actions earlier today showed that you are removing messages of multiple users from the Dutch community because you don't like them. If you are allowed to censor, you will be faced the same. Equal dealings.
  3. If you can't collaborate in a normal way, you have no reason to edit any of the discussions of the Dutch community. As long as you don't refrain, and correct, yourself from personal attacks, false harassments and wrong conclusions, this is one of the restrictions you will face. The Dutch community agrees on such.
  4. You would have been blocked days ago for your first messages already if you would have written such on one of the many other wikis.
  5. "That problem was, as you know, discussed off-wiki," -> Again you are wrong, you try to repeat that as often as possible put still is not true. All deletion discussions have taken place on this wiki. On IRC and on the mailinglist only people have expressed their annoyance with the troublesd pages.
  6. "However, it's normal when speedy deleting pages, to notify the user" -> As multiple custodians have deleted pages without notifying anyone, it is clearly not a standard use.
  7. "but the voting shows clear evidence that there was what could be called "off-wiki coordination" -- or "canvassing."" -> As said before, I haven't announced it outside the wiki, and as people often complained about the problems of the Dutch pages, they have seen the nomination as well and mentioned it on IRC.
  8. "There must have been an announcement somewhere." -> A conclusion which is purely based on your fantasy and nothing else. Any announcement would have lead to a much larger number of voters. 7 out of 9 of the voters already had done edits before they voted.
  9. "There was an already-established agenda" -> No there was not. I had solely seen a small number of problematic pages which I wanted to do about it, as I said in my motivation of the application.
  10. "a definition of the "problem" as being Timboliu" -> You are putting words in my mind I have never thought. Timboliu is not a problem, and I haven't considered him as such.
  11. "That page was just deleted by Romaine" -> because you attempted to bypass the community request to delete that page. The original page was nominated for deletion because of the content of that page which is considered too worse to be kept anywhere on this wiki.
  12. "Romaine has clearly abused his tools." -> You do not like I take action against your disturbing behaviour, and then you try to frame it this way.
  13. "I requested he stop" -> As long as you keep on going with false harassments and wrong assumptions, all your requests will be rejected as acting in such way is not considered acceptable. As I said before, on other wikis you would have been blocked days ago.
  14. "Protection of my user talk archive, after reverting me there, to his preferred version." -> The reason is simple, you removed certain messages from that page because you don't like the critics. That is called censorship. You use censorship to manipulate the audience because you give the impression that you have not received any critical comments on your messages. I have told you before that the page would be protected if you selectively archive and I kept my promise. It is very likely you did your action to provoke.
  15. "Deletion of my user page, the one mentioned above. There was no community request for that page deletion." -> The community has nominated that page because it is considered not useful and harmful on this wiki, whatever place it has. Also you tried to influence the community by bypassing the deletion process. Such is not acceptable.
  16. "Massive, tendentious argument, such as the report on Babel." -> If you think you can freely spread false harassments and wrong assumptions, presented as fact, it is my responsibility to correct those. I described you, Abd, as a problem for this wiki, and the Dutch community does agree with that judgement.
  17. "in each case violating standard wiki traditions." -> You can't claim that someone else is not following the standard traditions you like, as at the same time you break the most basic guideline Assume Good Faith, also guideline on the English Wikiversity as anywhere in the Wikimedia movement. Another wiki wide tradition is that false harassments and personal attacks are removed, something we should have done wit your messages much earlier, but removing such wordings is a common good on many Wikimedia wikis.
  18. "However, removing comments from other users from community pages is strongly discouraged unless those comments violate policy" -> which applies, as personal attacks are considered unacceptable and the Dutch community expects custodians take action upon such if it occurs.
  19. "Threatening to block me" -> I haven't treated to block you, I have only said you should be blocked as you disrupt this wiki and it community.
  20. "However, just as the English-speaking users on en.wikiversity do not have the right to exclude users from en.wv, just because they are not fluent in English, neither does a specific Beta community have that right." -> What users have asked you is to stop on this wiki, because you do not understand Dutch, you haven;t seen any of the deleted pages, haven't read nor understood the discussions, haven't understood or read the guidelines, so it doesn't make sense do do anything here as long as you do not start a dialogue with the Dutch community. As you haven't started such, you are requested to leave.
  21. "The problems I pointed out are language-independent" -> The problems you think there are, are based on the ideas you have and probably are common on the English Wikiversity, but are not common outside that wiki.
  22. "have to do with the general principle that sysops don't have superior rights over content, but only serve the community" -> Yes, I serve the Dutch community and not you.
  23. "What I did, among other things, was to analyze the actual process used."-> You are not capable of doing that, as you do not understand Dutch, a basic requirement to read the discussions before, to understand the guidelines and to understand the nominations.
  24. "In very few cases did I find a very clear deletion consensus, but, in most cases, a proposal, no discussion, and then action exclusively as decided by Romaine." -> As it was already discussed before on Forum and user talk pages on the wiki.
  25. "Romaine has claimed that this process is routine on Dutch wikis. I'm astonished, if it is. I've never seen anything like it on any wiki, and I've long been globally active. I'd be happy to look at actual process if I'm incorrect about this." -> Then you haven't visited and/or understood much wikis. On all Dutch wikis it is a common practice and in other languages as well.
  26. "The actual process in some cases showed a different consensus (not "delete") on certain pages, which Romaine ignored." -> That is not the case. The community has discussed the terrible situation of pages and wrote guidelines to base the deletions on.
  27. "If the community active on the Dutch Wikiversity is willing to accept that, and especially if Timboliu accepts that, it is no longer my business." -> Timboliu already has accepted it he has said multiple times.
  28. "For three years, few told him there was any problem, so he believed it was all okay. It wasn't okay." -> Several people, including custodians of this wiki have said that what he is doing is not oke, this has been said in live meetings, this has been said on various other places. He ignored it.
  29. "Here, Romaine has claimed that en.wikiversity is "full of crappy pages." If so, I'd request he tag them with speedy deletion tags." -> That would probably against the policy of the English community so I would not do that. Romaine (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Just one response to this barrage: no, it is not against the policy of the English Wikiversity community that any user, regardless of their language skills, add a speedy deletion tag. If a user adds them in a clearly disruptive manner, or many are being routinely removed without deletion, the user would be warned, that's all. This is general WMF policy, this is not at all unique to the English Wikiversity, and it also applies here on Beta. --Abd (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Woodcutterty: als je de behoefte voelt op Abd's bericht weg te halen, mag je gerust ook het mijne weghalen. Romaine (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)