text:
Wikiversity:Community Review/Ottava Rima 2

__NOINDEX__

Given that Ottava is no longer editing at this time I am archiving this Review since there is not much point in continuing a discussion about perceived problematic editing that is no longer occuring. --mikeu talk 16:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ottava Rima
This is a community review to request that Ottava be blocked contributing to Wikiversity for the period of a year or indefinitely, and to be banned from chatting in #wikiversity and #wikiversity-en on freenode for a period of a year or indefinitely. The reason I seek this because Ottava has been been involved in:

 * 1) Harassment of Wikiversity contributors on Wikiversity and on IRC;
 * 2) Undermining the efforts to get academics involved by attacking academics working on Wikiversity with institutional support;
 * 3) Using other sites to canvas support for his positions, to continue harassment related to Wikiversity actions against him and to avoid responsibility for his actions on Wikiversity by engaging in those activities elsewhere;
 * 4) Being a disruptive influence on other Wikimedia Foundation projects, from which he has been banned indefinitely;
 * 5) Ignoring Wikiversity policy, except as it can help him further his own agenda or works against his own agenda;
 * 6) Claiming that he is Wikiversity.

Ottava has been blocked before for bad behavior. Blocking him again would not be without precedent.

'''IRC log note: Both IRC rooms have had open logging policies for a while and that the room is logged appears in the topic of at least one of these rooms, and has been for several months. This can be verified via logs. For this reason, IRC log excerpts are provided with out getting explicit permission from the users being quoted.'''

Harassment
In conversations on IRC, Ottava will accuse people he does not agree with of being liars. This has happened to me on several occasions.

When Ottava had the power to block, he made several threats to block people he did not like:

Ottava threatened to block a user: I have notified both of the two admin who are watching the page that you are trying to disrupt and you will most likely be blocked when they  log in. And this was followed by, You will be removed from this community following SB Johnny.

Ottava threatened another time: "Making things up is incivil. Now, you were warned about such statements in the top of this page and if you continue you will be  blocked. Your disruption of this community, as well as SB Johnny's,  Mu301's, and anyone else who wants to encourage you, is officially over."

Ottava made threats again: "Any attempts to disrupt will result in you being blocked, as two admin have promised to watch over the hearing to ensure that consensus  is respected and this policy measure is completed without distraction.  "

Ottava made another threat "Evidence has been provided in the previous sections. If you keep this  up, you will be blocked. "

Ottava threatened Stanistani with loss of cooperation: " I also find it strange how you can defend a user who has proven to  stalk multiple users at Wikiversity irl and do such over a 3 year  period. If you honestly feel that such behavior is acceptable, then you  can be certain that I could never work with you, and most people could  not as that is one of those bright lines that a lot of people are  completely uncomfortable with"

Ottava threatened to block SB Johnny and initiated a recall against him: "You have been recalled and a confirmation hearing conforming to policy has been put up here. If you want to go ahead and have your rights removed, then  that may help consideration of your years of nasty incivility,  inappropriate harassment, and creation a poisonous atmosphere when the  ban hearing is started following the confirmation hearing. Any attempts to disrupt will result in you being blocked, as two admin  have promised to watch over the hearing to ensure that consensus is  respected and this policy measure is completed without distraction."

Ottava posted a threat of blocking when he said others were watching and had assurances of blocks: "I have notified both of the two admin who are watching the page that you are trying to disrupt and you will most likely be blocked when they log  in. Statements like  this are unacceptable, especially when you posted claims about me that  lacked evidence and amounted to no actual violation. If you think SB  Johnny deserves to be an admin, then make an argument. You have failed  to do anything as such. And no evidence? There were multiple links, so  outright making false statements is not appropriate conduct for  Wikiversity."

Ottava threatened ABD with a block: "If you continue even though this long standing policy is -very- clear on the matter, you will be blocked and a ban proposal will be put up.  "  This despite community consensus that says that is not a blockable offense.

He threatened with a block again saying: "Anyone can be blocked for helping a user evade a block - reinstating a user's edits like that is helping them."

Ottava threatened Adambro with desysop on IRC if Adambro placed a block longer than 24 hours on Ottava. (The IRC logs were public but have subsequently been deleted.)

When Ottava had the power to block people, he in fact did block people he did not like:

Ottava blocked Gmaxwell using a single-edit excuse for the block.

Ottava blocked ABD based on a disagreement without providing adequate warning.

Beyond threats to ban others as a form of harassment, Ottava engages in trying to get others to take care of his problems, accuses people of colluding against him, accuses people of being liars, and makes absurd claims about his detractors.

When Ottava could not get people to do what he wanted, he tried to get his way by taking it off Wikiversity "The decision is not made by a Crat but by a Steward. A Crat merely judges if there is consensus. And if two Crats want to object to the process then Meta will process it anyway - after all, you opened the  door to ignoring policy and procedure for such."

Ottava engaged in harassment of Jack Merridew by making absurd claims about him that could not be substantiated: "You basically stole credit for over 100k worth of my work in order to justify getting adminship at Wikisource and then used that to get a ban  appeal. Unlike you, I don't claim the work of others. Now please go  wander elsewhere, you aren't welcome here. "

Ottava implied collusion and appears to threaten others that failure to comply with his views will result in them losing adminship on Wikiversity: "And because of my Meta RfC, SB Johnny, Abd, and even you wont dare to try and silence the community as you know that if you dare try you will  be removed for your abuse. It is about time light is shine on your  corrupt ways so that the community can overcome the chilling affect and  make its voice clear. Already 3 blatant supports and  2 other supports outside of that section. The hole will be patched up,  Abd will be removed from adminship, and those who continue to try and  put themselves above the community, like you, SB Johnny, and the rest,  will be dealt with once and for all." Ottava implied collusion: "To be honest, that vote there was one of the reasons why I feel you might be a person from WR or a friend of Kohs. It is hard to account for  some of your opposition without an adequate background to establish  such." Ottava accused Jtneill of being a liar: "Then why is it that you allow inactive admin to still have authority? That you side with people who create no content but still think they  should have adminship? Or that you would even consider Abd a legitimate  Custodian candidate when Moulton has pointed out that he is the exact  opposite of a scientist and an academic and has no place in an  educational environment? Why do your actions promote a system opposite  of what you claim to desire?"

Ottava accused some one of bullying and harassment with out providing any evident to support the claim: "You transformed it from something easy and fun to have a few friends do basic maintenance to a position of bullying and harassment that is your  "right" to have to wage war on your enemies."

Ottava harassed SB Johnny and provided unsubstantiated claims by saying: "You've never been on Wikiversity's side. You allowed those like Salmon of Doubt to outright troll and abuse, you violated the community's trust  multiple times, screwed with people like JWS and Moulton just for fun,  and do very little but cause disruption and violate our policies. You  provide no educational content. You have no positive relationship with  this community. You were even desysopped by Jimbo for outright abuse." Ottava made the unsubstantiated claim regarding SB Johnny: "You burnt your bridges here long ago, then you came back to cause disruption against Jimbo. You aren't welcome. You have done a lot to try  and bring down this community, probably more than anyone else. "

Ottava harassed and made an unsubstantiated claim when he said: "We don't have "special policies and qualities". The only policies that got passed were those passed in spite of your actions. Most global  sysops have more experience on these wikis and keeping them working than  you ever will. After all, they were actually put into a position of  trust by consensus. "

When confronted with unsubstantiated claims, he refuses to provide proof: "You haven't been around long enough to know who are standard members, how they act, and the rest. You have only been around during the summer  and only in areas with the trolling and disruption. If you want to say I  have no evidence, fine. I don't need to provide evidence to you about  it. "

Ottava was repeatedly asked to substantiate claims but did not: "Since Ottava Rima has not come forward with evidence to support the claim that Moulton was banned and that he has  made attacks, I view Ottava's block of Moulton to be a serious violation  of the civility policy"

He made other unsubstantiated uncivil claims about SB Johnny: "You were drama mongering and backroom dealing with people on IRC months before Moulton was banned. It seems like you are completely incapable of  admitting the sleaze that you have pulled on this community. Go keep  your drama on your own site and play your games there."

The following is an extract from a February 9, 2011 chat where he implies people are out to get him:

[07:00]  Wait. Don't start the war yet, Ottava. I don't have all the Omnimax Cinerama Technicolor Zoomar 3-D Cameras in position yet. [07:01]  And we need more microphone booms to pick up the death rattles, too. [07:02]  Wars are over rated. [07:03]  o.O [07:05]  But highly entertaining when dramatized on television in shows like Spartacus and Rome. [07:07]  I hate shows like the new Spartacus. They are basically just low quality porn combined with bad soap opera drama [07:17]  What if Abd and Ottava gave a war and no one came? [07:21]  Moulton: Isn't that par for course? [07:22]  Um, Moulton - Abd is warring against me, you, JWS, SB Johnny, Mikeu, Wikipedia, etc [07:23]  Haven't you seen his recent aiding KBlott in cross wiki sock puppetry to promote a very fringe POV while making nasty attacks on others? [07:23]  Ottava, you and Abd are simply providing me with material for a comic opera with lotsa bad puns and atrocious song parodies.

The following is an extract from a February 1, 2011 chat:

[07:15]  I have morals [07:15]  You might not agree with them [07:15]  There is a fine line there. [07:15]  but it doesn't mean I have done anythting amoral [07:15]  No murder [07:15] <Ottava> no stealing [07:15] <Ottava> no rape [07:15] <Ottava> nothing [07:15] <Ottava> definitionally, you are way wrong [07:15] <LauraHale> You sound pretty immoral to me because of your lack  of empathy. [07:15] <Ottava> otherwise, every self centered person is a psychopath, which would mean  most of the world is [07:16] <LauraHale>  You've stated a willingness to get rid of everyone on Wikiversity to  futher your own Wikiversity agenda. [07:16] <Ottava> Hell, your ranting is very self centered [07:16] <Ottava> It is motivated by a hurt ego [07:16] <LauraHale> In the context of a wiki, you're willing to committ  genocide. [07:16] <Ottava> because I didnt treat you like the princess you wish you were [07:16] <Ottava> If you want a sychophant, go find one [07:16] <Ottava> demanding everyone arbitrarily fulfill the role will get  you no where [07:16] <LauraHale> I guess that makes me overly capable of empathy to think genocide is bad. [07:16] <Ottava> I'm not here to fulfill your psychological inadequacies. [07:16] <Ottava> You aren't capable of any empathy :) [07:16]  <Ottava> You have proven tha [07:17]  <Ottava> that [07:17] <Ottava> You  are as self centered as I am [07:17] <LauraHale>  And I have the logs of your statements to support my claim of Ottava  believes in community genocide to support Ottava's world view. :) [07:17] <Ottava> tha is the amusing part [07:17] <Ottava> which community did I say to kill off? [07:17] <LauraHale> Wikiversity. [07:17] <LauraHale> Ottava's way or no way. [07:18] <LauraHale> Ottava was a bad boy. [07:18] <Ottava> Wikiversity removal would be genocide? [07:18] <Ottava> o.O [07:18] <LauraHale>  Ottava lost his privileges because he was willing to kill the community  to do his way. [07:18] <Ottava> Okay, now that is quite out of touch [07:18] <LauraHale> Wikiversity content =/= Wikiversity community. [07:18] <Ottava> Laura, do your parents know that you consider the  disabanding of an online website the equivalent of Nazis burning Jews  for their religion? [07:18] <Ottava> I think they fucked up in raising you.

Ottava made unsubstantiated allegations of sockpuppeting: "You were, and for very nasty stuff - sock puppetry, stalking, disrupting dozens of pages, etc. I only do what is best for encyclopedic articles.  You only do what is best for your own personal agenda. That is the  difference between us."

Ottava has made other unsubstantiated claims of sockpuppeting: "It was mostly sock puppetry, making gay slurs, making suggestions that they were middleschoolers, etc. "

Ottava made other unsubstantiated claims of sock puppetry in order to harrass JWS: "We all know that proxies are used in such situations. Sock puppetry catching is 90% behavior. The behavior that was there was 100% not that  of a new user and 100% including capitalization and language common for  it being a sock puppet. Furthermore, JWS, it has already been shown that  you've made a sock puppet and that there are plenty of others. If you  want, we can enforce a clean house on such as sock puppetry has a  history of being known to be disruptive."

 * (Related to sock puppetry allegations, Ottava has been accused of having his own sock. In [Ottava's defense], Ottava said: "It isn't undisclosed. Sj knows about the account and information on it  was provided to the Foundation via him. It is also known by multiple  admin. These are standard procedures across the WMF for dealing with  such accounts used for such reasons."

 * When asked to disclose other socks, Ottava said: "I'm not linking to it as it contains personally identifying information." "It is an account that the Foundation knows about used only to post up content that is similar in nature to content that I have produced  elsewhere. It was created to allow easy relicensing of content so that  there would be no future concerns between information published under my  real life name and that published as Ottava Rima.")

Ottava has allegedly made unsubstantiated claims of expertise in order to put down and harass others: Ottava: "I learned as an educator that the only way to ensure that the majority of children learn is to remove the tiny minority that are there to only  play games. " Challenged by Abd: "As to what Ottava has "learned," he didn't learn this from up-to-date  education courses nor from masters at the process. Playing games and  learning are the same thing, at best. "  Ottava, actively involved elsewhere on the page, never came back to substantiate his implied claim as an educator of children.

Related to the above, Ottava has been accused of incivility here, here, here, and here.

TeleComNasSprVen mentions Ottava's incivility: "Right now, I have seen more incivility coming from either Ottava or Abd more so than I have ever seen SB Johnny. "

In addition to the above, when Ottava does not get his way, he tries to use community consensus tools to get his way. An example of that is Trying to prevent SB Johnny from becoming a Custodian and Bureaucrat.

Ottava engaged in harassment when he opened a review against Mikeu. He also engaged in harrassment when he opened an earlier review of mikeu. He engaged in further harrassment when he initiated a review against abd.

Response
Wow, the lies above are unbelievable. It seems like Laura is just throwing everything possible for whatever reason. Like this: "Ottava engaged in harassment of Jack Merridew by making absurd claims about him that could not be substantiated:" Except that they were substantiated and well known. This proves that I wrote the content and this shows where Jack Merridew uses my name and content to justify getting adminship -without- notifying me or telling me he did that. Jack Merridew harassed many of my friends and was banned. I would not have supported him using -my- work to gain adminship. To say -I- am harassing him when I have never followed him anywhere yet he follows me is ridiculous. Everything above is just as absurd as this point and it boggles the mind that LauraHale is not blocked for outright lies and libel.

Just look at some of it: "Ottava has allegedly made unsubstantiated claims of expertise in order to put down and harass others". Really? What did I make up? I already put my academic record showing my multiple degrees, people know of my various publications, and I have tons of work here and elsewhere. "never came back to substantiate his implied claim as an educator of children" Really? Because Abd believes that children shouldn't be disciplined? I fulfilled the requirements for the Maryland Secondary Teaching Certification in 2005, which means that my knowledge of education is more recent than Abd's, who constantly tells everyone he has been an expert for decades and thus hasn't been involved in modern changes in education. But no, Laura wants to throw up whatever she can.

I do enjoy this one: "Ottava threatened Adambro with desysop on IRC if Adambro placed a block longer than 24 hours on Ottava." No. I told Adambro that if he used admin ops to block JWSchmidt because the two are in a long standing feud that I would overturn them and put it up for a desysop. I didn't threaten him if he was to block me. Admin do not have the right to use blocks to inflict pain on others as revenge for arguments and disputes. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Undermining academic involvement
Offline, I have discussed Wikiversity with many people. Much of this conversation occurred at RecentChangesCamp Canberra, where a number of academics and Wikiversitians were present. I asked people why they did not contribute more to Wikiversity. At least three people cited Ottava by name, saying they did not want to deal with him as he is a known trouble maker. One of them cited his activities on Wikipedia as evidence of this. Other people cited the politicking as a reason not to get involved. The academics I have talked to just want to accomplish their own objectives, without having to worry about the bureaucracy involved. This includes having to worry about being subject to a community review because someone disagreed with them.

Beyond my discussions, undermining academic involvement can be seen by Ottava's willingness to file community reviews against academics in good standing who get into conflict with him. Example: Community Review/Jtneill.

Ottava's attempts to get content, regardless of context, hampers legitimate academic efforts. In this case, he was trying to ban nude images from being uploaded to Wikiversity in order to protect children.

Ottava does not publish on Wikiversity under his real name. He does not present credentials on Wikiversity that can be verified. He does not appear to represent a university or larger academic department or university support. He then makes unsubstantiated claims that active academics publishing under their real names with institutional support do not behave like academics: ""is that the community was primarily concerned about civilit? Where was the discussion on civility? I find it very concerning that you make these claims yet there is nothing to back that up. As Moulton would say, that has no basis in real education or academia. You have to have both evidence and sound principles to follow. It requires direct evidence. You don't see a problem that there is many assumptions, grouped together voting, lack of discussion, and the rest? You don't see that just these very things are what tore apart this community for the past two years? And you don't think that by allowing non-regulars to vote would not split the community any further? Why would you think that any more than a small handful of people would ever trust you or side with you? You further the political factioning of this community."

According to JWSchmidt, Ottava did not evenly apply Wikiversity policy regarding use of real names: "Ottava Rima, why was Moulton singled out for his use of real world names when others such as KillerChihuahua were  allowed to make statements such as "My experience  with Barry is that he flouts all rules and rejects or mocks attempts to  work with him." (see this discussion)?"

Response
Imaginary and fanciful rewriting of history. Laura has never recruited anyone to work on classes nor can anyone say I have ever chased anyone away. I don't mess around with individual projects here, criticize content, or anything like that. Hell, I have very little actual presence beyond gnome work. And to top it off, this so unbelievably wrong: "Ottava does not publish on Wikiversity under his real name." I do, and if people actually knew anything about Wikiversity they would have known that. Also, I like how you try to say that pornography is some how necessary to academia instead of one of the major factors why both women and academics ignore the WMF projects. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Actions elsewhere
Rather than address problems on Wikiversity in a civil fashion, Ottava will approach people on other platforms and engage in behavior that would not be acceptable on Wikiversity. He has also made claims about Wikiversity off Wikiversity that are either not true or cannot be substantiated.

A February 16, 2011 example of this:

[14:54] * Joins: Ottava (~no@184.241.42.252) [14:54] <JWSchmidt> hi Ottava [14:59] <Moulton> It's the Ottavan Empire! [15:00] <JWSchmidt> so, Moulton, have you been bullying people? [15:01] <Moulton> Oh, it's worse than that. I've been singing duets with them. [15:01] <Moulton> Talk about torture. [15:02] <Ottava> http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JoshuaZ&curid=108454&action=history [15:02] <Ottava> That shows you are doing far worse [15:03] <JWSchmidt> it is strange how most people are proud of their wiki contributions and even make lists of their works, and then there are IDcabalists who want to hide their history and prevent people from discussing what they have done [15:04] <Moulton> Ha ha. JZ is begging The Dark One to protect him. [15:04] <Moulton> Is it not amazing how the Corrupt Ones come flocking to my door. [15:05] <JWSchmidt> The Dark One is known as a practiced censor of Wikiversity [15:05] <Ottava> JWSchmidt, Smectymnuus and many others used pseudonyms because of nasty attacks on their personal lives from others [15:06] <Moulton> What was Rumpelstiltskin's real name? [15:06] <JWSchmidt> I think that the IDcabalists can dish nasty attacks but they can't stand an honest discussion of their misguided behavior [15:06] <Ottava> If they out others then blank that [15:06] <Ottava> But outing them is not academic [15:06] <Ottava> it is bullying [15:07] <Ottava> Academia is not the realm of thuggery [15:07] <Moulton> Addressing a fellow scholar from Yale by his name is bullying? Golly. [15:07] <Moulton> Have you been reading George Orwell again, [redacted --Abd 18:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC) ? [15:07] <Ottava> Address a fellow scholar by the name he fucking published under instead of adding some name -you- feel is better fitting [15:07] <Ottava> Its called academic respect [15:07] <Ottava> which you lack [15:08] <Ottava> you lack method [15:08] <Ottava> you attack people out of revenge [15:08] <Ottava> you aren't engaging anyone properly [15:08] <Ottava> stop with the bullshit already [15:08] <Moulton> Can I quote you on that, [redacted --Abd 18:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC), and attribute it to the distinguished scholar for Catholic University of America? [15:08] <Ottava> I'm tired with you trying to use "academia" to justify thuggish tactics done only to hurt and bully others!!! [15:09] <Moulton> Have you taken that nap yet? [15:09] <Moulton> When one is tired, it is good to take a nap. [15:09] <Moulton> Would you like me to sing you a lullabye? [15:10] <Ottava> Moulton, what you are doing is against Maryland law and the law of many other states, you know [15:10] <Moulton> Feel free to request the Maryland State Police to have me arrested. [15:10] <Ottava> No, I'll have the Maryland State Policy file a subpeona for the files at Picard's lab [15:11] <Ottava> and then she will have to explain why the lab had invesigators [15:11] <Ottava> I mean seriously, is that what you want? [15:11] <Moulton> "Officer Bupkes, please go to Massachusetts and arrest Moulton. He addressed me by my real name." [15:11] <Ottava> It is more than just using real names [15:11] <Ottava> you are bullying people [15:11] <Ottava> you are stalking people [15:11] <Ottava> you are harassing people [15:11] <Ottava> It isn't acceptable human behavior. [15:12] <Moulton> Feel free to harass MIT all you like. May I quote you on your proposal to do that, [redacted --Abd 18:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC) ? [15:12] <Ottava> Moulton, if you keep it up someone will probably end up calling the cops. I didn't say I would. [15:12] <Ottava> But they will go after the various files [15:12] <Ottava> drag other people into it [15:12] <Moulton> Have you called them yet? Would you like me to look up their phone number for you? [15:12] <Ottava> You will only ruin everyone's life by attempting to ruin a few people's lives [15:13] <Ottava> Do you have any self awareness? [15:13] <Ottava> Any care? [15:13] <Ottava> I mean, god, you are acting like Abd [15:13] <Moulton> If I didn't care, why would I work so hard to enlighten you, Jeff? [15:14] <Ottava> You aren't trying to do anything but get some kind of sick pleasue by causing people pain [15:14] <Moulton> Are you in pain, [redacted --Abd 18:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC) ? [15:15] <Ottava> Fuck off Moulton and stop harassing people

When Ottava lost his privileges on Wikiversity, he tried filing a request on meta to avoid losing those privileges.

When Ottava was not successful at getting rid of SB_Jonny on Wikiversity, he took it to meta wiki. (He has done similar things, getting banned on commons after contacting Sue Gardner because he got into trouble for de-admining some one else. In another case, despite Ottava's problems with Jimbo's handling of Wikiversity in the past, Ottava appealed to Jimmy Wales to help him).

He has made claims on meta wiki regarding what will and will not be tolerated on Wikiversity: "Sorry, but penis images are not going to be used on Wikiversity, Wikisource, Wikiquote, or the other sister projects. They are only used  on Wikipedia. Your background and experience as both an editor of  Wikipedia and of the sister projects is lacking, so I do not expect you  to understand the matter. "

To avoid a public trail, Ottava sometimes uses e-mail: "You were warned about such things via email." He was warned off this type of action: "Being warned about "such things" off-wiki is irrelevant. "

Ottava was accused by JWSchmidt of colluding with others off wiki to ban another Wikiversity user: "Ottava Rima, is it not true that the  decision to ban Moulton from Wikiversity was made in secret, off wiki by  just a few people? Ottava Rima, were you part of the secret  off-wiki discussions where a few people decided to impose a ban on  Moulton? Ottava Rima, is it true that Moulton was  never community banned? Ottava Rima, please either respond here or  remove the block that you imposed on Moulton." This was an accusation that Ottava did not answer on Moulton's review page, despite actively contributing elsewhere on the page during the same time period.

While he avoids accountability for his own actions on IRC, e-mail and on Wikipedia Review, he seeks to hold others accountable for their actions on these places: " it is odd how he ignores his own incivility and SB Johnny's incivility at Wikipedia Review. "

Furthermore, it could be argued that Ottava sought to further avoid accountability for his actions on Wikimedia Foundation projects as a whole by taking his ban to ArbCom and not living with the consequences of his actions that resulted in his ban.

Attempts to get around accountability for his actions have been alleged on Wikiversity as they alleged to Wikipedia. SB Johnny alleges that: "Yes, you post stuff on WV to get around your WP ban."

Response
Some of the above I had to laugh at. Is Laura trying to suggest that the 1000 white penis images will be used? Or that emailing Abd to chastise him privately to save him from public embarrassment is bad? And the last part about my ArbCom ban is quite laughable. ArbCom even ruled that others could proxy my content, so where am I "getting around it"? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptiveness
According to JWSchmidt, Ottava has been disruptive: "However, other abusive sysops such as Adambro and Ottava Rima were able to step up and  continue the disruption of Wikiversity by means of calling for and  imposing bad blocks in violation of Wikiversity policy." and "This past Summer, Ottava Rima took it upon himself to enforce Jimbo's absurd ban against Moulton."

According to abd, Ottava is disruptive: "Ottava, in response to my warning about disruption, started a process to topic ban me from making any edits to Wikiversity pages (which would be  a tad draconian for a sysop, eh?). "

Blocked elsewhere
He was indefinetely blocked on meta wiki.

He was indefinetely blocked on English Wikipedia.

Not interested in policy/Only interested in policy when it helps him
The following is an extract from a chat, where Ottava shows that he is not interested in policy, a comment in comment in contradiction to his behavior where he makes legalistic arguements to get rid of sysadmins, bueacrats and others who cross him:

[11:11] <SB_Johnny> "is X, Y, Z acceptable?" [11:11] I would suggest 22 questions as the maximum to allow per review, based on some theory that anything can be learned by answering 22 questions, if I'm remembering correctly [11:11] <SB_Johnny> and if it isn't, CR "has the weight of policy" [11:11] <SB_Johnny> good lord [11:11] <SB_Johnny> 22 is way too many [11:12] <SB_Johnny> 10 at most [11:12] <SB_Johnny> 5 or 6 much better [11:12] <mikeu_awy> yeah, 1/2 dozen [11:12] <SB_Johnny> the goal should be to get core principles, not specifics [11:13] <Ottava> The goal should be to stop boring people to death about things that dont matter [11:13] <SB_Johnny> a handful at most, never more than a handful :-) [11:13] <Juandev> hello guys [11:13] <SB_Johnny> heya Juandev [11:14] <SB_Johnny> we're talking about http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:SB_Johnny/CR_CR [11:14] * mikeu_awy need to head out now [11:14] <mikeu_awy> see you all later [11:14] <SB_Johnny> 'k, have a nice eve! [11:15] <Juandev> SB_Johnny: that sounds interesting [11:16] <SB_Johnny> well, it's aimed at trying to make these discussions more productive and less combative [11:16] <SB_Johnny> boring people to death might actually be a good thing, in that light [11:17] maybe like the Nomic game that was started at Wikiversity, maybe there should be a page to encourage people to play the Questions game [11:18] <Juandev> good night guys [11:18] <Ottava> How about this - we black list about 50 negative words

An example of this can be seen when Ottava ignores consensus on Wikiversity: "Thus, at this point the very rough consensus is for Undelete, particularly temporary undeletion, not Delete as Ottava implies."

Others have observed Ottava's lack of willingness to seek consensus: " I see no equivalent desire on Ottava's part to actually seek current consensus. And this is Ottava, not anyone else. "

While Ottava is not always willing to obey consensus, he is willing to call others out for not obeying consensus: "As Steward Mardetan has pointed out, all WMF projects need consensus to determine things and that adminship would require consensus."

As demonstrated above, Ottava ignored consensus when it came to Ottava taking independent action in defiance of consensus. When others do that he talks of banning them: "Furthermore, stiffling community processes and ignoring community  consensus is a bannable offense,"

In a case of rules are good with helping himself in regards to canvassing, Ottava urged SB Johnny to e-mail inactive custodians regarding the removal of their status, "Have you bothered to email them? And if someone who hasn't used their admin ops in over 2 years returns suddenly, are we to assume that they  are still up to date with our current standards and still trusted? I  have a feeling JWS wont think that is true regarding McCormack. ". SB Johnny did this. According to ABD, the consequences were: "What was effectively demonstrated was that these "inactive custodians" would still respond if suggested, which means that they are, in fact,  available if a need arises, and some of them specifically asserted that.  They were then attacked by Ottava, for whatever excuse he could think  up, dredging up old conflicts, real or imagined, etc. "

Response
Odd how LauraHale can claim I ignored consensus when I undeleted the page after there was consensus to undelete. More of reality not matching what LauraHale wished it to be. And the Privacy Policy is clear that posting logs is not acceptable. It doesn't matter if SB Johnny rewrote the top to say chat will be logged as that has no authority. And canvassing? That is utterly ridiculous when everyone in IRC is already a participant and discussions were posted everywhere. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

He has been blocked before
Ottava was blocked on Wikiversity before for this edit, with Dark Lama citing the cause as failure to be calm.

Ottava was blocked for two hours for " blatant incivility, persisting after a rejected warning. The incivility was not necessary in some way for the topic being discussed, it  appeared to be an old or outside conflict being brought it, with  reference to Wikipedia Review, see the Wikiversity:Custodian feedback  for links to the sequence."

Related to this, when Ottava has been warned that his behavior may lead to a block, he has removed the warnings. He has also asked admins to stop warning him of potential blocks and uncivil behavior.

Related to this again, Jtneill alleged: "I find it even more concerning that Ottava removed the incivility warnings and notification about his block, as well editing the log  history about his block/unblock. "

Ottava was blocked for 2 days for this comment: "We don't have "special policies and qualities". The only policies that got passed were those passed in spite of your actions. Most global  sysops have more experience on these wikis and keeping them working than  you ever will. After all, they were actually put into a position of  trust by consensus. "

Ottava was blocked by ABD: "Block is provisional, pending review, but given the seriousness of the disruption, I made it a year."

Beyond the blocks, Ottava has already been desysoped because of actions related to the things mentioned in this block request.

Ottava says: "Children only grow up when they are punished for inappropriate behavior, not when they are encouraged in it like you are doing." Despite being punished/blocked on Wikipedia (permanently), Wikiversity and meta, Ottava still has not learned his lesson.

Response
The removal of Abd from adminship twice verifies that LauraHale is making claims divorced from reality. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ottava is Wikiversity
Ottava has repeatedly claimed that he is Wikiversity and that Wikiversity would not survive with out him. This type of understanding and claim are damaging to Wikiversity. Related to this, he would be happy to see Wikiversity be a failure and to lose a great many of its contributors.

An examples of this claim can be found on Jtneill's talk page: And as I stated, I did all the work that everyone else should have been doing. No one else will be doing it. There are some claims that they will, but those are false claims, like Abd admitting he wants to "take  over" Wikiversity as stated on WR. I will not have my academic work  associated with what Sj said was a failing project filled with  vandalism, trolls, and not even the decency to welcome new people. I did the work to make sure Wikiversity was not shut down and was  respectable. I always sought out advice from others before making decisions and always begged others to help out. This whole thing shows that Wikiversity is dying and deserves to die."

Others feel this way too, including ABD who said: "When I started to notice an accumulation of such things, I started to form a view that Ottava was "owning" the project, but I was not ready to  bring this up. It's difficult to prove, so I prefer to address specific  actions."

Ottava says: " If it will require a Meta vote to remove all administrators from Wikiversity and have it taken over by Global Sysops just to stop this  nonsense, then so be it."

Response
We have 6 active admin according the toolserver tool. For a year, I was one of the only fully active admin and yes, I did all the work. That can't be refuted just because LauraHale has some fanciful notion of history divorced from reality. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Truth and Reconciliation
Blocking is a tool for dealing with vandals, not a way to silence people who say what is on their mind. There are other people besides Ottava Rima who have done more damage to Wikiversity since the Hostile Takeover of Wikiversity in 2008. Why target Ottava for a block when others get away with causing more disruption of the Wikiversity community? It has been suggested that Ottava Rima makes unsubstantiated claims. Making unsubstantiated claims became a fundamental part of the Ruling Party's governing methods after the Hostile Takeover of 2008. If Wikiversity is going to return to being the peaceful learning community that existed before the Hostile Takeover of 2008 then we need a Truth and Reconciliation Process. I'd like to see Ottava lead a Wikiversity community discussion about his concerns. Every Wikiversity community member should be free to discuss the problems that confront Wikiversity, problems that erupted when a gang of Wikipedians disrupted Wikiversity. This community of scholarly learners needs protections against invaders from other Wiki projects and protection against abusive Wikimedia Functionaries who impose the divisive rules of other wikis on Wikiversity. I'd like to hear Ottava's complaints and, in particular, know more about secret off-wiki communications channels that have been used by those who imposed the Hostile Takeover of 2008 and who continue to deflect Wikiversity from its mission. We need a truth and reconciliation process that can clear the air, allow honest Wikiversity participants who were driven away from the project to return and remove sysop tools from those who have abused their positions of trust and responsibility. --JWSchmidt 14:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that Wikiversity needs a Truth and Reconciliation Process. However, we need a new medium in which to conduct it.  I propose that we craft a Truth and Reconciliation Process by writing a Comic Opera about ourselves.  Each person who has a grievance can prepare one or more songs, duets, soliloquies, or production numbers to express their shpilkes in the genecktegessoink.  —Caprice 14:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Response from Ottava Rima
Laura Hale's recent statements are meaningless. I have broken no rules except to some how offended Laura one day in the past. I have never made any responses to any of her actions on Wiki, nor anything really regarding. As I've said in the past, I really don't care what she says or does and I have always ignored her.

My recent use of IRC was to tell Moulton to stop using real life information to harass other people as that is not appropriate for someone claiming to be an academic. If Laura wants to complain and post up such nonsense, that only shows problems about her. It is not acceptable to harass people through outing and we created the privacy policy just for that reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "I have broke no rules."
 * Um, you just broke a rule of grammar. Caprice 15:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My keyboard has 6 disabled keys so they don't always register. My "c" key is just the censor and doesn't have an actual key. I stopped caring so much about typos. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Um the missing 'n' in "broken" is also the very next letter you typed in the word "no." Is it an intermittent brokenness?  —Caprice 16:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and? I type, it doesn't always register. Sometimes it registers multiple times because when I try to type fast I sometimes hit the keys that are broken multiple times. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes what I type doesn't register too. Sometimes I find I have to translate the message into a different language before it registers.  —Caprice 17:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Response from Abd
Well, the silent majority finally speaks. Been waiting for this. I request that my response section not be used for threaded comment, per the pending proposals that seem to have substantial support.

Laura, I know how much work it can be to write a documented report. It's insane. This really shouldn't have been necessary, with some saner structure.

Ottava has been highly disruptive. Ironically, he's been fairly quiet since he was indef blocked at meta. See m:Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima, which has details about disruption at meta, and the recent disruption documented there was mostly related to Wikiversity, but Ottava was in hot water already.

I do not favor banning Ottava, but I do favor specific behavioral restrictions, enforced with blocks. Such restrictions have been set in the past: SBJ warned Ottava that if he repeated incivility toward me, he'd be blocked, and Ottava was, in fact, blocked twice under this, but then, strangely, Ottava was allowed to continue and when I, in turn, blocked Ottava for threatening Wikiversity users with being blocked (by "two custodians were were only waiting till they had time to "come on"), SBJ unblocked without setting any restrictions. (I disclosed "involvement" and requested immediate review at RCA.) I later warned Ottava of a topic ban on WV space, which was, in fact, what he had proposed for me. I was prevented from enforcing that.

Careful and selective bans, reliably enforced, could work. Ottava could continue his valuable contributions. I previously proposed something like this for JWS. It was ignored, but, then, it was proposed that JWS be banned, which got some support. Some elements in this community don't like restrictions, but then jump for maximum restriction. Lousy process. But, hey, "ban" is one word, and "selective bans, determined by [process] and reliably enforced by [process]" is many, and we are afflicted by people who imagine that a university can be run with sound bites.

Ottava has been so disruptive that I do understand that someone might think nothing short of a complete ban will work. Perhaps that's correct, but lesser measures, properly respectful of Ottava and expecting that he will sanely cooperate, should be tried. --Abd 17:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Response of Ottava to Abd

 * Laura has never been silent. She has been a vocal critic of me on IRC since last fall when I chastised her friend Jtneill. As a side note, many people have found your comments and actions disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Romistrub/Greetings

Hi all! Nice to meet you!

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Romistrub/Greetings


text: Template:Sig

title: Template:Sig


text: Template:Sigg

title: Template:Sigg


text: Template:Str rep

title: Template:Str rep


text: Template:Str left

title: Template:Str left


text: Template:Str right

title: Template:Str right


text: Template:Str find

title: Template:Str find


text: Template:Str sub long

title: Template:Str sub long


title: File:Nm1.s11.simpson.error2.png


title: File:Nm1.s11.simpson.error2.svg


title: File:Nm1.s11.simpson.error3.png


title: File:Nm1.s11.simpson.error3.svg


title: File:Eml5526.s11.tm7.3.1error.jpg


title: File:Eml5526.s11.tm7.3.7error.jpg


text: File:2D truss HW3 FE1 Exa3.3 or 2.3 from FB.JPG


text:
Engineering Experience 4: Design a Small Solar Vehicle/Nl/Team PM6

Introductie
Zoals je bij doelstellingen kan lezen zal dit team een “Small Solar Vehicle” (SSV) ontwerpen in het kader van het engineering experience 4 - project elektromechanica in GroepT,rekening houdend met een vast budget. Een zonnepaneel en DC-motor, die ter beschikking staan, zijn de bouwstenen van de SSV. De SSV zal tijdens dit project onderworpen worden aan uiteenlopende tests en zijn gedrag zal aan de hand van berekeningen en simulaties voorspeld worden. Op het einde van het project nemen de kleine zonnewagens het tegen elkaar op in een race op het Martelarenplein te Leuven.

Teamleden
Het Small Solar team omvat 8 ingenieursstudenten uit het tweede jaar industriële wetenschappen Groep T. Door de verschillende vaardigheden van elk teamlid te benutten, kan er een nieuw, innovatief ontwerp gemaakt worden voor de SSV met als doel de race op het Martelarenplein te winnen.

Blog
Het Small Solar team houdt een blog bij die wekelijks geupdate zal worden. Hierop kunnen alle nieuwe ontwikkelingen tijdens dit project op de voet gevolgd worden.

Week 1
Het eerste seminarie vond plaats en de teamleden konden elkaar ontmoeten. Er werd al meteen een projectleider gekozen (Benjamin) en de eerste oriëntatieopdrachten werden verdeeld onder de verschillende teamleden. Vincent en Michiel staat in voor het samenwerkingscontract, Arnout en Benjamin de gant chart, Michael en Giel de WBS, Diederik en Martijn voor het plan van aanpak.
 * dinsdag 15/02 2011:

De eerste versies van de orientatiedocumenten zijn afgewerkt en wachten op feedback. Er werd vandaag ook een logo ontwikkeld en de wiki werd opgestart zodat het updaten kan beginnen.
 * woensdag 16/02 2011:

Week 2

 * dinsdag 22/02 2011:

Vandaag was het terug een seminarie van EE4 waarin we nog extra informatie gekregen hebben over het zonnepaneel, het Umicore Solar Team, faciliteiten voor de bouw enz... Na het seminarie hebben we metingen uitgevoerd op het zonnepaneel om de karakteristiek ervan uit te zetten op een grafiek. Uit deze meetresultaten konden we de onbekende parameters van de karakteristiek berekenen.

 * Woensdag 23/02 2011

Alle documenten zijn aangepast aan de eisen en richtlijnen van de coach. Deze worden vrijdag doorgestuurd voor een volgende controle.

Week 3

 * Maandag 28/02 2011

De eerste berekeningen van de gear ratio zijn gemaakt (gewone en optimale), de nodige tijd voor het parcours en de grafiek van het zonnepaneel is opgesteld (U(I)).

 * Dinsdag 01/03 2011

Feedback van coach. WBS, PVA, Gantt Chart en samenwerkingscontract zijn in orde. De berekeningen worden verder uitgewerkt met de nodige factoren van toepassing. Zo werd ook de kortsluitstroom berekent bij de stand van de zon in mei. We hebben onderling 2 teams aangesteld voor enerzijds de berekeningen i.v.m. gear ratio en kortsluitstroom bij de stand van de zon in mei en anderzijds een team dat brainstormt over de eigenlijke constructie van de zonnewagen.

Er werd vandaag uitgebreid nagedacht over de basisconstructie van ons voertuig waarbij we tot de conclusie zijn gekomen dat we een constructie met vier wielen gaan gebruiken. Door 4 wielen te gebruiken zal de rolweerstand lager zijn en hebben we meer stabiliteit. Een rechthoekige constructie biedt geen nadelen qua luchtweerstand omdat het zonnepaneel zelf al een rechthoekige vorm heeft.

Er werd afgesproken dat iedereen tegen volgende week eens goed moest nadenken hoe we de constructie zullen bouwen. Gaan we achter -of voorwielaandrijving gebruiken, welke rollagers hebben we nodig voor een roterende aandrijfas, welke diameter van de wielen en het materiaal etc... Kortom welk materiaal is het beste om het gewicht en de rolweerstand te beperken?

Enkele teamleden zijn na de EE4-sessie op prospectie gegaan naar Metaleuven om te kijken of er daar onderdelen zoals rollagers beschikbaar voor de constructie van de SSV. Hier werden ze doorverwezen naar een andere winkel aan het station in Leuven. Ze zijn hier naartoe geweest en vonden hier een uitgebreid gamma aan onderdelen

 * Dinsdag 01/03 t.e.m. vrijdag 04/03 2011

Indivdueel per teamlid werd er eens kort nagedacht over de materiaalkeuzes en implementatie in het ontwerp. De ideeën worden volgende sessie in groep besproken. Overige taken zoals berekeningen worden uitgevoerd voor de personen hiervoor verantwoordelijk.

Week 4

 * Maandag 07/03 2011

Vandaag werd onze Blog geupdate en worden de berekeningen die we vorige week gestart zijn, afgewerkt. Morgen start de discussie in groep over de constructie van de SSV met de kennis die individueel werd opgedaan. Bovendien worden er knopen doorgehakt qua materiaalkeuze en materiaalimplementering zodat we de bouw van de SSV kunnen plannen.

 * Dinsdag 08/03 2011

Vandaag kregen we een seminarie over Simulink. Met behulp van dit programma gaan we een simulatie maken van onze zonnewagen en verschillende gear ratio's uittesten.Degene die het minste weerstand biedt, zullen we fysisch ook toepassen in ons design. Na het seminarie was er een feedback sessie gepland met onze coach. Aangezien we pas om 16u30 een afspraak hadden met onze coach, hebben we de tijd nuttig gebruikt om een aantal dingen te bespreken. Het ging voornamelijk over hoe we de bouw van de zonnewagen zouden realiseren. Enkele van onze teamleden hadden al bruikbaar materiaal meegebracht voor de wielen: we hebben 2 paar wielen uitgekozen uit hard plastic. Een foto van onze wielen volgt.Omdat we nu over de juiste afmetingen van de wielen beschikten, zijn we al kogellagers gaan halen (foto volgt).Ook besloten we in groep om met balsahout te werken omdat het makkelijk bewerkbaar en heel licht is. Na de feedbacksessie met onze coach hebben we alle taken onderverdeeld onder de teamleden. 3 man zijn verantwoordelijk voor simulink, de hoek waaronder het zonlicht invalt in mei in Leuven moest nog opgezocht worden alsook de weerstandcoefficient voor een rubberen ondergrond en nog 3 man zijn verantwoordelijk voor alles wat de bouw betreft.

 * Donderdag 10/03 2011

Vandaag is het simulink-team samengekomen om de video's op Toledo over Simulink te bekijken en na te maken in Simulink zodat we al over een basiskennis beschikken om heel ons systeem uiteindelijk softwarematig te testen. Er werd ook besproken om eventueel aan een versie te raken zodat we op onze eigen computer met simulink kunnen werken, op Groep T is het immers moeilijk om zich te concentreren rond de publieke computers. Het doel is om tegen maandagavond in Simulink ons systeem te testen met de berekende waarden die eerder handmatig uitgevoerd werden. Moesten we met problemen kampen, kunnen we die tijdens de feedbacksessie met de coach bespreken en oplossen.

Week 5
De inclinatie van de zon in leuven tijdens de race kon gemakkelijk worden gesimuleerd dankzij een planetarium software (open source).
 * Maandag 14/03 2011

Om te frame van de wagen te bouwen zijn we van materiaalkeuze veranderd. Plexiglas blijkt een betere keuze te zijn omdat het niet gemakkelijk breekt en het goed kan worden bewerkt door de lazercutter.

Drie leden van het team zijn deze namiddag afgezakt naar 'FabLab' met het frame te laten maken. De gemaakte 3D tekeningen in Solid Edge zijn daar gebruikt om de onderdelen van het chassis 'uit te cutten' in plexiglas (mbv en lasercutter).
 * Vrijdag 18/03 2011

Eveneens het logo is al gegraveerd in het chassis en volgende week worden de onderdelen samengevoegd en kunnen we aan de overbrengingen beginnen werken.

Week 6
Vandaag hadden we weer een coach sessie waarin er toch enkele vragen waren i.v.m. simulink. Ons ontwerp in Simulink gaf veel errors en we hebben de hele namiddag gezocht naar bugs in het ontwerp. Alles leek logisch opgebouwd maar toch bleef het programma errors geven. We hebben besloten om het probleem thuis verder te bekijken na lange uren frustraties.
 * dinsdag 22/03 2011

Het Simulink probleem was nog steeds niet opgelost en daarom hebben we een mailtje gestuurd naar de coach met de file in bijlage. Het bleek dus dat de tolerantie van de solver bij opties op e-5 moest gezet worden, iets wat we moeilijk zelf konden achterhalen. Eens het programma werkte, hebben we de simulatie gebruikt om een optimale gear ratio te genereren (7 in ons geval). Vandaag werd er ook aan het verslag gewerkt van Simulink,vrijdag tegen 18h moest dit op Toledo gepost worden.
 * woensdag 23/03 2011

 * vrijdag 25/03 2011

Vandaag werden alle documenten op Toledo gepost en een verslag over de constructie van de SSV werd op de WiKi geplaatst.

Week 7

 * maandag 28/03/2011

Na de projecthandleiding nog eens goed te doorlezen, zijn we tot de constatatie gekomen dat we nog een simulatie moesten maken van het wagentje. Hoe ver zal het wagentje rollen als je het op 1 meter helling loslaat? Nu dat Simulink geen problemen meer gaf, hebben we dit snel kunnen simuleren en een kort verslag over gemaakt. Hierbij zijn we tot de conclusie gekomen dat onze initiële rolweerstandcoëfficiënt veel te klein was (zie verslag).

 * vrijdag 01/04 2011

De tandwielen zijn besteld via internet en we moeten nu wachten op de levering. Eens we de tandwielen hebben kunnen nog een laatste check doen van onze 'Solid Edge'-tekening en dan kunnen we onze definitieve versie van het frame laten uitsnijden in FabLab.

Week 8

 * dinsdag 05/04/2011 2011

De delen van het frame zijn nauwkeurig uitgesneden in Fablab volgens de Solid Edge tekening. We zijn nu klaar om het geheel te assembleren. Omdat een van onze teamleden de nodige stukken voor assemblage thuis had liggen, werd besloten dat die persoon (Arnout) het geheel in de paasvakantie zou assembleren.

Paasvakantie 9/04-24/04

Week 9

 * dinsdag 26/04/2011

Vandaag hebben we onze wagen aan enkele tests onderworpen. Het mechanisme voor het draaien van het zonnepaneel bleek niet echt 100% goed te werken alsook de bevestiging aan de wagen. Het kogelgewricht van de autospiegel zat veel te los. Er moet ook nog een uitsparing voor de rail gemaakt worden. De motor werd goed bevestigd en het wagentje reed bij zoninval. Bovendien moet de auto nog wat meer uitgelijnd worden zodat het op een rechte baan kan rijden.

 * zaterdag 30/04/2011

Er werd gezocht naar een nieuwe autospiegel met een beter mechanisme voor het draaien van het zonnepaneel. Het geheel kon nu stevig bevestigd worden en het zonnepaneel kan in elke mogelijke hoek gedraaid worden. Enkel de uitsparing voor de rail moet nog dieper gevijld worden en dan is de auto klaar voor de race.

Week 10

 * dinsdag 03/05/2011

Vandaag was het de langverwachte Solar Race op het martelarenplein. We zijn vandaag vroeg naar de locatie gegaan om nog wat noodzakelijke tests uit te voeren. De uitsparing voor de rail bleek heel veel weerstand te geven en soms vloog het wagentje van de rail af. Er werden kleine aanpassingen gedaan aan de rail (ijzerdraad bevestigd) om ervoor te zorgen dat het wagentje op de baan bleef. Ook dit bood natuurlijk heel veel weerstand, het railmechanisme bleek dus veel meer weerstand te bieden dan we dachten.

Gelukkig was het wagentje wel klaar voor de SSV-race, met kleinere snelheid dan verwacht maar toch... Eens door de technische keuring, konden we aan de race beginnen. Het wagentje had bij de 2 races die we deden, telkens een snelle tegenstander en we verloren 2 keer. We haalden echter wel 2 keer zonder schrammen de finish, wat al een hele prestatie was! Het team was na de race opgetogen en we waren allemaal van mening dat de oorzaak lag bij het railmechanisme.

Week 11

 * dinsdag 10/05/2011

De rolweerstandcoeffiënt kan berekend worden uit het experiment waar we het wagentje van een helling van 1 meter hebben laten rollen. De berekende rolweerstandcoeffiënt is 0,012 en dus nagenoeg gelijk aan de waarde die we in Simulink gebruikt hebben. Het wagentje rolde iets verder dan in de simulatie. Dit is waarschijnlijk omdat we een veel groter gewicht hadden dan verwacht (1,1 kg) i.p.v. 750g in de simulatie. De berekeningen zijn klaar en in een document verwerkt dat we nog moeten posten.

Vandaag werden ook de overige taken overlopen en de nodige afspraken werden gemaakt om deze opdrachten voor de deadline in orde te krijgen.

Bouwverslag
Bouwverslag SSV

Bij de bouw van een SSV moeten allerlei moeilijke beslissingen gemaakt worden. Deze keuzes kunnen de uitkomst van de race beïnvloeden dus het maken van dergelijke beslissingen is van groot belang. In dit bouwverslag worden deze beslissing verduidelijkt.

Het frame:

Het frame van de zonnewagen is één van de belangrijkste keuzes die ons team moest maken. Vele veranderlijken moesten onderzocht worden om daarna de beste oplossing te assembleren en op die manier het frame van de wagen te bekomen.

De meest logische en efficiënte vormen voor frames zijn ongetwijfeld de driehoek en het vierkant. Beide constructies hebben hun voor -en nadelen. Een driehoekig frame zou het gewicht van de zonnewagen drukken maar heeft als nadeel dat er asymmetrisch gewerkt moet worden. Er moet asymmetrisch gewerkt worden omdat het voorste wiel dan naast de rail van de racebaan zou komen te staan. Hierdoor zou de gewichtverdeling op de wielen niet gelijk verdeeld zijn. Ook de uitlijning van de wagen zou meer problemen geven dan bij een vierkantig frame. Door een minder goede uitlijning zou er bij het rijden over de rail meer wrijving zijn tussen het begeleidingssysteem en de rail waardoor er grote energieverliezen zouden optreden. Een extra wiel zorgt ervoor dat we niet asymmetrisch moeten werken en op die manier wordt het gewicht beter verdeeld over de vier wielen van de zonnewagen. De uitlijning van de wagen is dan veel beter. Nadeel van de vierhoekige frame is dat de dwarskrachten opgevangen moeten worden. Op die manier kan de auto "samen geplooid" worden (zoals op onderstaande figuur.).

Bij de keuze van het materiaal voor het frame zijn er drie belangrijke parameters onderzocht: de sterkte, het gewicht en de mate van bewerkbaarheid. Vele mogelijkheden kwamen naar boven bij het brainstormen binnen het team. Lego Technic zou te veel wrijving veroorzaken, plastic leek ons niet stevig genoeg ten opzichte van andere materialen, en balsahout leek ons dan weer minder gemakkelijk bewerkbaar in FabLab. Wanneer we FabLab bezochten kregen we het advies om plexiglas te gebruiken. Dit is een zeer licht en makkelijk bewerkbaar materiaal. In onderstaande tabel staan enkele eigenschappen van plexiglas opgesomd.

Uit deze tabel konden we besluiten dat plexiglas wel degelijk sterk genoeg zou zijn om te voldoen aan de vereisten van ons frame. Wanneer we deze eigenschappen met de eigenschappen van hout (treksterkte: 21, buigsterkte: 35) vergeleken werd het duidelijk dat Plexiglas steviger is dan hout.

Het graveren van ons teamlogo in plexiglas zou ook geen enkel probleem zijn. Het plexiglas kon in FabLab perfect in de juiste vorm gesneden worden met de juiste afmetingen. Door ons frame op te delen in verschillende onderdelen was het gemakkelijk om het frame te kunnen uitsnijden in FabLab. Na het uitsnijden van deze onderdelen werden deze aan elkaar gekleefd om tot het uiteindelijke frame te komen. Plexiglas voldeed dus aan de drie voornaamste criteria: sterkte, bewerkbaarheid en gewicht.

Op onderstaand figuur kan men het uiteindelijke frame zien van de zonnewagen. Enkel de gegraveerde logo's op de zijkanten van de constructie zijn niet zichtbaar op de figuur.

De wielen:

Om de keuze van de wielen te maken zochten we eerst op internet naar materialen die weinig rolweerstand geven en toch voldoende grip hebben op een rubberen. Al snel viel op dat we best gebruik maakten van harde materialen om onze wielen te vervaardigen. We besloten dat eerst alle teamleden thuis zouden zoeken naar eventueel bruikbare wielen. Het eerste mogelijk resultaat voor de wielen waren wielen van Playmobil. Deze wielen leken op het eerste zicht voldoende geschikt. Wanneer we echter ons ontwerp verder uitdachten botsten we op een probleem. De twee voorste wielen waren kleiner dan de achterste, waardoor onze SSV schuin zou komen te staan. Maar de voorste wielen waren niet hoog genoeg, de voorkant van het frame zou over de rail slepen. We moesten op zoek gaan naar andere wielen. Plexiglas bood alweer de oplossing, wanneer we de wielen uit plexiglas zouden vervaardigen zou de wrijvingscoëfficiënt voldoende klein zijn. De wielen zouden daarenboven veel gewicht kunnen dragen en erg stabiel zijn. In onderstaande tabel zien we de wrijvingscoëfficiënten van enkele materialen.

Na berekening van de rolweerstandcoëfficiënt van het wiel (0.0022) en vergeleken met de rolweerstandcoëfficiënt van een hard opgepompte rubberen band op een betonnen wegdek (0.0015), konden we concluderen dat wielen uit plexiglas een goede oplossing waren voor onze SSV. Deze wrijvingscoëfficiënt is dus voldoende klein. De grootte van de wielen is niet van belang, ze moeten enkel groot genoeg zijn om het frame boven de metalen rail te laten komen.

De assen:

Ook voor de assen waren er verschillende materialen mogelijk. We hadden echter een sterk en stevig materiaal nodig; voldoende afschuifspanning, buiging en torsie kunnen opvangen. Daarom kozen we voor stalen assen.

De aandrijving:

Het gebruik van tandwielen voor de aandrijving van onze SSV leek logisch maar na wat onderzoek op internet vonden we dat dit toch vaak problemen oplevert. Zelfgemaakte tandwielen zouden perfect in elkaar moeten passen, anders zouden grote verliezen optreden. Zelfs wanneer we de tandwielen niet zelf zouden maken, is het nog moeilijk om de perfecte tandwielen te vinden die voldoen aan de berekende gear ratio.

Maar door voldoende lang op het internet te zoeken konden we tandwielen vinden en bestellen uit epoxyhars met een diameter van 3 mm en 2 cm.

De lagers:

Een eerste vraag die bij ons team opkwam op het vlak van lagers was: “Is het wel nodig om lagers te gebruiken?” Het doel van lagers is het ondersteunen van de assen. Het gebruik van lagers vermindert namelijk de rolweerstand tussen de as en het frame. Er zijn 2 soorten lagers: wentellagers (as rolt in de lager) en glijlagers (as schuift in lager). De voordelen van wentellagers ten opzichte van glijlagers waren duidelijk:

 * geringe aanloopweerstand
 * de wrijvingsweerstand blijft bij elke rotatiefrequentie dezelfde
 * weinig energieverlies door wrijving
 * heel wat wentellagers kunnen zowel axiale als radiale krachten opnemen.

Om al deze redenen kozen we voor het gebruik van wentellagers. Binnen de categorie van wentellagers bestaan er nog verschillende soorten lagers.

lageras. Hoekcontactlagers zijn daarom geschikt voor het opnemen van gecombineerde belastingen. De axiale krachten kunnen toenemen als de contacthoek groter wordt. Aangezien de éénrijige groefkogellager, zie onderstaande figuur, geschikt is voor kleine elektromotoren en het opvangen van axiale en radiale belastingen beslisten we om deze lagers in ons frame te implementeren. Deze éénrij-ige groefkogellagers zijn ook goedkoper dan andere soorten lagers.
 * 1) Eénrij-ige groefkogellagers zijn bijzonder veelzijdig. Zij zijn eenvoudig van ontwerp, niet uitneembaar, geschikt voor hoge tot zeer hoge toerentallen en vereisen weinig onderhoudt.Door de diepe loopbanen en de nauwe aansluiting tussen de loopbanen en de kogels zijn groefkogellagers niet alleen geschikt voor radiale belastingen, maar ook voor axiale belastingen in beide richtingen, zelfs bij hoge toerentallen.Ze worden vooral gebruikt in combinatie met kleine en middelgrote elektromotoren.
 * 2) De tweerij-ige kogellager heeft zoals de naam doet vermoeden 2 rijen kogels. Deze lagers zijn geschikt voor een lagerconstructie waarbij men rekening moet houden met de doorbuiging en uitlijningsfouten. Ze zijn geschikt voor radiale belasting en een licht axiale belasting.
 * 3) Bij de hoekcontactkogellagers zijn de loopbanen verschoven in de richting van de

Begeleidingssysteem:

Een laatste belangrijk punt in de bouw van de SSV is het begeleidingssysteem. We moesten een systeem bedenken zodat onze SSV recht zou rijden over de rail met zo weinig mogelijk wrijving. We opteerden hier voor een gleuf te maken aan de voor -en achterkant van het frame. Het was echter moeilijk om deze gleuven perfect uit te lijnen zodat minimale wrijving zou optreden. De rail van de racebaan was ook niet perfect recht waardoor er nog grotere verliezen optraden dan we eerst verwachtte.

Procesverslag
Procesverslag

Inleiding:

Het doel van dit verslag is om een beter zicht te krijgen op de samenwerking binnen ons team. Op welke vlakken kon de organisatie van het project beter? Welke opdrachten werden door welke teamleden uitgevoerd en waren er problemen in verband met de samenwerking? Welke vaardigheden werden aangewend om het project tot een goed eind te brengen? Het beantwoorden van dergelijke vragen zal ons een beter inzicht geven in de samenwerking binnen ons team en kan ons extra informatie bieden naar de toekomst toe.

Planning:

Wanneer we onze uiteindelijke projectuitvoering vergelijken met onze Gantt Chart valt het op dat er weinig wijzigingen werden doorgevoerd. Enkele taken werden op een andere manier verdeeld omdat na verloop van tijd de vaardigheden van de teamleden beter in geschat konden worden. Op die manier kreeg elk teamlid bepaalde taken die overeenkwamen met zijn vaardigheden. Bij het opstellen van de Gantt Chart in de oriënteringsfase van het project was het onmogelijk de taken al efficiënt te verdelen onder de teamleden. Ook waren er enkele wijzigingen op het vlak van tijdsgebruik. Zo waren bepaalde taken meer tijdrovend dan verwacht en waren er enkele taken sneller afgehandeld dan eerst voorzien. De samenwerking binnen het team verliep vlot, iedereen kende zijn taak en voerde die ook steeds op tijd uit. Op die manier konden we steeds tijdig de deadlines halen en boekten we stapsgewijs vooruitgang. Een klein aandachtspunt was misschien het afspreken van wie de finale versies van de rapporten en dergelijke zou indienden. Vaak gebeurde dat door vrijwilligers maar het was organisatorisch gemakkelijker geweest om daarvoor één vast persoon aan te duiden.

Samenwerking:

Zoals al vermeld is in het gedeelte in verband met de planning werden de taken verdeelt volgens de capaciteiten van de teamleden. Zo hield Vincent zich vooral bezig met de berekeningen, werkten Michael en Arnout aan de bouw van de wagen, ... Op die manier kon iedereen zich steeds nuttig bezighouden en konden we efficiënt te werk gaan. De uiteindelijke versies van de taken werd ook steeds gecontroleerd door elk teamlid, op die manier konden we eventuele fouten vermijden of verbeteren. Wanneer een bepaald teamlid problemen ondervond bij het uitvoeren van een taak, kon hij hier steeds mee terecht bij de andere teamleden. Door de samenwerking tussen de teamleden konden we veel problemen vermijden of oplossen. De takenverdeling gebeurde evenwichtig genoeg zodat elk teamlid zijn steentje bijdroeg aan het project. Vaak was er voor de deadlines maar net genoeg tijd om alle rapporten na te lezen, daardoor konden we de uiteindelijke versies onvoldoende controleren op spellingfouten.

In de onderstaande taartdiagrammen vindt men de weergave hoeveel tijd er naar organiseren, rapportage, berekeningen, en het bouwen ging per teamlid:

Uit de bovenstaande diagrammen kunnen we besluiten dat de taken wel degelijk verdeeld waren op basis van de vaardigheden van elk teamlid. Zo zien we dat Vincent het overgrote deel van de bewerkingen voor zijn rekening genomen heeft. Dit was tevens ook een zwak punt in de samenwerking binnen het team, het feit dat één teamlid bijna alle berekeningen voor zijn rekening nam betekende dat de andere teamleden minder inzicht kregen in de werking van de SSV. Een mogelijke oplossing voor dat probleem was om de berekeningen gelijkmatiger te verdelen onder de teamleden of om wekelijks een update te krijgen van wat de berekeningen opleverden en wat dit betekende voor het verdere verloop van het project.

Vaardigheden:

Op het vlak van communicatie waren er al voldoende vaardigheden aanwezig binnen de groep van bij het begin van het project. Afspraken werden steeds mondeling gemaakt en per e-mail bevestigd. Op die manier werden misverstanden vermeden. Organisatorisch waren er enkele verbeteringen mogelijk. Zo hadden we van week één een moment moeten vrijmaken om te schetsen hoe ver we stonden ten opzichte van de te halen deadlines. Ook een update van de berekeningen elke week had kunnen bijdragen tot een betere organisatie. Naarmate het project vorderde werd deze vaardigheid wel verder ontwikkeld. Zo werd er de eerste weken weinig tijd gemaakt voor onderling overleg, terwijl naar het einde van het project toe dit steeds meer gebeurde. Zo bleef elk teamlid op de hoogte van de vooruitgang.

Ook het tekenen van de SSV in een Solid Edge lukte aan het eind van het project beter dan in het begin. Zo werd het gemakkelijk om kleine aanpassingen aan het ontwerp ook snel toe te passen op de tekeningen in Solid Edge. De aanwezige vaardigheden van Solid Edge van EE2 moesten ook opgefrist worden. Een probleem dat zich echter vormde was toen er gewerkt moest worden met het programma Matlab en Simuling, geen enkel teamlid bezat in het begin de vaardigheid om efficiënt te kunnen werken in Simulink en Matlab. We konden dit probleem oplossen door simpelweg veel tijd te steken in het ontdekken van het programma Simulink en Matlab. Op die manier verworven enkele teamleden sterke vaardigheden om onze SSV te kunnen simuleren in Simulink.

Conclusie:

Na het maken van dit afsluitend procesverslag valt het steeds meer op dat we als team goed konden samenwerken in het afgelopen project. Elk teamlid kende zijn taak en voerde die altijd uit. Elk teamlid kon steeds rekenen op de steun van de andere teamleden wat bijdroeg tot de goede sfeer binnen het team. Wat betreft ons eindproduct, de SSV, mogen we tevreden zijn. De SSV werkte naar behoren en haalde twee maal gemakkelijk de eindstreep van de racebaan. Een minpunt was het feit dat onze SSV te zwaar was om echt competitief te zijn. Door gebruik te maken van enkele minder doordachte en zwaardere constructies werd de SSV te zwaar om mee te kunnen dingen naar de overwinning.

Een aandachtspunt voor eventuele volgende projecten is zeker het tijdsgebrek voor het nalezen van de taken. Hierdoor bleven er af en toe fouten staan die te vermijden waren. Ook de verdeling van de berekeningen zou beter aangepakt kunnen worden. Door de berekeningen door meerdere teamleden te laten uitvoeren zou een extra controle opleveren. Op die manier blijven de andere teamleden ook beter op de hoogte van de ontwikkelingen.

Planning
Alles met betrekking tot de planning van het project kan je vinden in dit onderdeel. De planning omvat verscheidene documenten die tijdens de oriënteringsfase van het project werden opgesteld.

 * Samenwerkingscontract
 * 1) Samenwerkingscontract []
 * Gantt Chart
 * 1) Gantt chart []
 * Work Breakdown Structure
 * 1) WBS []

 * Bouwverslag
 * 1) Bouwverslag []


text: File:2D Truss HW3 Problem statement figure.JPG


text:
User:Arided/ImplementingParagogy

At the Peer 2 Peer University (P2PU), course facilitators have tried to find a middle path between the traditional classroom model (teachers and students) and the voluntary, distributed, model of free/open source software and other forms of peer production.

But when a course is based on volunteer participation it is hard to keep motivation high: each new difficulty or annoyance that an individual experiences gives them one less reason to participate. Furthermore, diversity in the body participants is an asset for learning, but it can also make planning and organization more difficult (like when vastly different timezones are involved!).

This article takes the form of a lesson plan for people who are organizing peer learning experiences, and aims to help make their job a little easier. The secondary aim is to help groups of facilitators explore new patterns for "organizational learning", and to encourage healthy growth and debate.

Peer-to-peer learning
Peer-to-peer or "peer-based" learning is what happens when a group of people with different backgrounds and aims agree to come together for a learning activity, most likely without a teacher and without an explicit learning plan (at the outset). There are both benefits and hazards to this kind of learning. This lesson is aimed at persons who are interested in helping facilitate such learning experiences, to get the greatest benefit and diminish the overall hazard. You might be an official "facilitator", or an administrator, or a peer learner aiming to help your learning group achieve more. You may be someone who is simply intensely interested in a topic, and who wants to figure out a way to make your involvement more social. For the purposes of this lesson, you might imagine yourself as something like a captain on a sports team, still "one of the guys" (or girls, respectively), but with more responsibility.

The lesson reflects back on half a year of experience at P2PU and continues to grow and develop -- in working through this lesson, you will have the opportunity to contribute to the new theory of "paragogy".

 * Purpose of this lesson
 * Learn techniques for designing and running a peer-to-peer course.
 * Learn techniques for fostering organizational learning in your institution or other shared context.
 * Develop plans for balancing the above with your own learning needs and ambitions.
 * Audience
 * Anyone who is already involved in peer-to-peer education or who aims to become involved with it.
 * Time to complete
 * Initial exercise: about 1 hour - Practice in the field: at least 6 weeks.
 * Requirements
 * Can be studied alone, but should be practiced with a group.

The paragogical principles

 * 1) context as a decentered center
 * 2) meta-learning as a font of knowledge
 * 3) peers are equal but different
 * 4) learning is distributed and nonlinear
 * 5) realize your dream then wake up!

Implementing Paragogy
This lesson is based on the experiences of the author in several enrichment courses at P2PU, in Autumn 2010 and Winter 2011. Some of the courses went well, and others didn't, and I was curious about why. Charles Jeffery Danoff and I wrote up some of our initial thoughts on this topic in a short paper called Paragogy: Synergizing individual and organizational learning (2011), but we needed another round of experiments to put our ideas into practice. This lesson integrates what we've learned in our second round and will help you work through the process of designing a peer-to-peer learning experience. In turn, your feedback on this process will help take the theory of paragogy to the next level! More information on how to submit feedback will be provided below. For now, your first task is to begin designing a new course.

Task 1: Select your topic wisely
We've found that some of the most successful learning experiences enhance projects that were "going to happen anyway". For example, Marisa Ponti and I were planning to write a book chapter on the topic of Open Governance and Learning, and we decided to convert our abstract for the chapter into a syllabus for a 6 week course. Our conversations were going to happen anyway, but now they have expanded to include a lively discussion with a diverse group of interested participants, including some contributions from noted experts in the field.

That said, by the end of the course, the only participants in a course meeting set up for playtesting the current lesson plan were Marisa, Joe & Charles! Between the effect of people drifting away, and the difficulty of making it to meetings, people need to be strongly motivated about the topic if they're going to stick with it. On the other hand, just because someone doesn't make it to a live meeting doesn't mean they are disinterested (time zone issues apply).

As a point of contrast, consider the case of the Short Calculus course I ran contemporaneously with the one just mentioned. Here I had to hunt hard to even find candidate participants for the course, and it did not come as much of a surprise when participation turned out to be very low right away. On the other hand, a more immediately popular course called DIY Math from the previous quarter ended up going very badly because the "topic" was too vague and general for this group to handle.

In short, the choice of topic is crucial. And while it would be possible to choose topics based on a poll that asks "what are you interested in?" (and P2PU is running a poll for course suggestions on Uservoice), the problem with this approach is that people frequently don't know what they "really want" in advance. A more "emergent" way of getting at interests would be still different, and we need to explore this. Whether we call it a "radical peer-to-peer model" or a simple application of social networking to learning, perhaps some of the appropriate systems and structures can be developed in the course of a course -- for interested participants only, of course!

Task 2: Engage your peers in the design process early on
Whether it's by talking with friends with whom you share an interest, or running a survey to get feedback from interested participants online, making the design of the course into a collaborative process could encourage "buy in"; and it will certainly help you decide many pragmatic points. Do you need live meetings, or will an asynchronous discussion do just fine? What sort of background do people have (or should they have) with the topic? Etc. For purposes of this exercise, it's enough to write down a few questions that you'll want to ask would-be participants before the course starts.

But we can also ask "when do we need design?". Wenger suggests to look for ways in which design can scaffold and support learning through practice. He also suggests to design for the the learning potential of an organization (Chapter 10). This is in line with our view. In particular, when you think about what you really want to do (in practice), it could be that a course would not be the best way to get there -- consider P2PU as one example of a designed peer-learning experience that doesn't take the form of a course.

On the other hand, even without being "perfect" (see the principle just discussed), a course can help -- perhaps especially if it connects to larger body of work, to other people with similar interests (who may be outside the course), and to the larger groups and networks dealing with the course's topic.

Peer learning can happen "slowly" across time and space, whenever people share things they have learned in ways that others can learn from. In this extreme, peer learning experiences might not be so much "designed", as they are simply the byproduct of individual learning processes.

Still, given what P2PU is trying to do, perhaps we need to deepen our critique. The difficulty of creating rich, global, synchronous peer learning experiences is all too frequently washed away in a celebration of how cool the idea is. The hazard is that instead of actually doing the hard stuff, we just talk about how wonderful P2PU is -- despite the fact that the site is really still in "beta" mode.

Maybe we haven't developed the theory of paragogy enough for it to support this ongoing critical analysis -- but that's OK because we are still in the "beta" period too!

Task 3: Make the scope and structure clear
You don't have to provide everything, but as a course (co-)organizer, you are likely to be largely responsible for finding (or creating) the initial set of resources for the course. P2PU has been described as follows: "think of it as book clubs for open educational resources". That pointer may be helpful (or potentially confusing).

The question to sort out here is what shape your course is likely to take. By now, this lesson should have made you ask if it is it even appropriate to think of it as a course at all, or would it be better to think about it as some other sort of structured activity? Be as explicit as possible. (For convenience, we will continue to talk about "courses" here, but you are encouraged to look for the word that suits your situation best; perhaps "affinity spaces" would be the best term to use in general .)

It is OK to put your answer in the form of further questions to ask to participants before the course begins, or at its outset. However, note that if part of the course is "building the course", you must make sure that the course participants are really up for this, and make sure the overall course design is sufficiently flexible to accommodate changes.

For example, in the first week of the Mathematics for Game Designers course, many of the participants declared that they mainly wanted to write code -- but many of these people were not heard from much after the first week.

Task 4: Define your objectives
I'm personally not a great fan of the term "learning objectives"; in light of the principle we just discussed, I think they can be too hard to specify. However, I do think there is significant value to be obtained by being clear about your objectives in general.

In one of the key documents of the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement, A. T. Ariyaratne tells a story of how working with a group of villagers to clarify their real objectives resulted in them getting out of a tangle of red tape and led them to resolve their problem directly. To sort all of this out, you may need to get to the (third) "norming" stage from Bruce Tuckman's theory of group development in order to find shared objectives, and this is not likely to happen overnight.

For the purposes of this exercise, it is enough to come up with some your own most important objectives for the course, possibly including a rough time-table. You can later invite course participants to go through a similar exercise.

Task 5: Report back
This lesson will be undergoing development as long as feedback keeps coming in: you can get in touch by emailing the author directly -- or you can just dive in and edit the document at its "online home" on Wikiversity (see the About this Document section below).

Has this exercise been useful? If you run a course you've designed with the help of this plan, I will be very curious to know how it goes. Your feedback will be hugely valuable in improving this document for next time. I hope that by including this participatory component, I've also made a good example of a paragogical lesson plan!

Principle: Context as decentered center
In paragogy, we recognize that we are not merely teachers or learners, but are actually co-creating the learning context as a whole. This is a good time to reflect on your context, generally speaking. What role does learning play in your life and in the life of your communities? What was it that brought you here? Why this learning in this context? What would you really like to have happen here?

Paragogy complements didactic and other teaching modes (particularly andragogy  ) by drawing attention to the central role of context, and the way it shapes, constrains, and supports learning activities, and the way learning, in turn, can help people shape the context in which they live.

Principle: Meta-learning as a font of knowledge
I have not been doing this long enough to know precisely what works and what doesn't work. Indeed, one of the themes of paragogy is that even after a rich career in peer-to-peer learning one would still be learning a lot -- that's part of the point! It may be helpful to address the question "what do I hope to learn about the learning process through my work in this course?"

One way to amp up your meta-learning is to acknowledge the need to support it explicitly. This lesson plan reflects on several courses I was organizing or co-organizing, but has been developed as an assignment in another course where I've been (twice!) a participant, Collaborative Lesson Planning. P2PU maintains various structures to help -- a good place to ask questions is the general community mailing list, or the research list.

Doing research about learning can be really hard, but I would argue that it is something we should each be doing, to come up with a plausible picture of how we each learn best, or even just a sketch that can help us understand when we are learning.

This can happen on the organizational level too -- in some sense, the best version of P2PU's roadmap would be an aggregation of all of the "learning profiles" for participants. We should not take the organization as "given", nor should we as researchers working in this space take ourselves to be detached observers. We're not. That's what makes us researchers in this space!

Principle: Peers are equal but different (and they give feedback that wouldn't be there otherwise)
Peer learners work together to create the key resources in the course -- learning opportunities that come from interaction. Presumably you'll want to foster an egalitarian culture: remember that in peer learning there isn't anyone who dictates what others have to do. However, this doesn't mean that the peer learning experience should be a structureless blob. Some participants will want more overt structures given to them, others will want to create new ones! Does your course accommodate people with these, and other, personal characteristics?

Principle: Learning is distributed and nonlinear
Given the ongoing difficulties I've had organizing mathematics courses on P2PU, and the comparative success of programming and other computer-related courses, I've spent a lot of time thinking about what I might be doing wrong as a course organizer. Then I think back to my original goal for these courses, namely, to build a useful bridge between P2PU and PlanetMath.org. This can only happen slowly. In particular, it seems essential for PlanetMath to offer much better support for independent mathematics learners. There is then a serious question to consider, about how peer learning is useful in mathematics.

The key point is that you may find an important part of your course's critical mass "elsewhere" -- but any external resources you choose need to be the right ones.

Principle: Realize your dream then wake up!
The topic you pick should help you realize your dream. Ideally as you sketch out the topic in a bit more detail, you'll be able to find others who share the same dream to a reasonable extent. In addition, once the course has progressed far enough, you should get a sense that you've reached its potential. The point of this principle isn't that the course forms the ultimate "answer" to your questions, or that it will be the final say on the topic you've chosen. Rather, it can be a useful step forward, and can help you figure out what your "real" questions are!

 * "Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better." -- Beckett

Conclusion
As I've thought this over, I've come to see two primary ways to go about evaluating or measuring learning. The first is to use some sort of external measurement. In this case it doesn't really matter how the person learned the material -- it could be from a peer, or from a book, or from an on-the-job experience.

The second is a self-assessment, based on the question "when have I been learning best"? This is a challenging question, but it is important to take up in paragogy. It may come across as a weak point, to say that we have no "standard" by which learning should be evaluated. But in fact, paragogical evaluation asks each person to judge according to their own standard -- what has worked here and what hasn't?

Of course, the two approaches can be blended. For example, the conditions that promote your learning can be kept track of in a learner profile, using both subjective and more objective measures. A rating system can be part of peer-production ("star" a message post that you learned something from, and this shows up both in your own profile and in the profile of the person creating the message).

In general, one can evaluate paragogy by its outcomes. If a peer learner writes a paper that is useful to the immediate peers and/or published and useful to a broader community, then they have probably learned something too. Conversely, one hopes to make what one learns useful to others.

About the author
Joe Corneli is a Ph. D. student at the Knowledge Media Institute of The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK. (email: mailto:holtzermann17@gmail.com, www: http://metameso.org/~joe)

About this document
Implementing Paragogy is made available under a Creative Commons Zero License. Contributors include Charles Jeffery Danoff, Marjorie King, Brylie Oxley, and Marisa Ponti. The document's "upstream" home is http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Arided/ImplementingParagogy.

title: User:Arided/ImplementingParagogy


title: File:Eml5526.s11.team7.hw3.1.png


text:
Engineering Experience 4: Design a Small Solar Vehicle/Team PM8

Feb. 18, 2011
Cooperation Contract

Plan of Approach

Work Breakdown Structure

Gantt Chart

Mar. 25, 2011
Simulink

Design/Process Report

Calculations

Sankey Diagram

Engineering / Case SSV, Part II
Final Calculations

Sankey Diagram

Technical drawings: Chassis and Wheel Holder

Enterprising
Enterprising

External webpage: http://solarinternational.xavierziemba.com

Educating
Final Process Report

Final Design Description

The remaining components of this process report can be found on this page. The story of our design is summarized by the meeting notes below.

Meeting 1: February 15, 2011
At first all teams are formed by our teachers, this being done, every student verifies what team he’s in and sticks together with his other teammates.

Every member was present, except for Miengma, this is due to the fact that he’s been added to our team 2 days later.

After getting to know the other teammates we exchange our emails and phone numbers, we make agreements about how to keep in touch and exchange our files. We assign different responsibilities like team leadership or conference president and try to find a name for our team. Then we discuss our first assignment, which consists of making a Work Breakdown Structure, a Gantt Chart, a Plan of Approach and a Cooperation Agreement. We decide to work on little groups of 2 people on every document and share it with a software called Dropbox.

Meeting 2: February 22, 2011
Every member was present.

Our material, a motor and a solar panel, is handed over after a couple of seminars about the solar panel and how to do the calculations and similar stuff. Then we have a short meeting as a team where we discuss how to start and take the first steps to the building process of the SSV. We mainly discuss how to save weight and to minimize the drag of the chassis and the body of the vehicle. The idea comes up to position the solar panel in front of the body, in such a way it faces towards the sun, so we only have to take in mind the drag of the panel. We agree to make calculations about the optimal orientation of the panel towards the sun based on astronomics and the rotation of the earth. Also, we want to get the design software Solid Edge on our laptops by next week, so we could start drawing some vehicle parts and combine them. Finally, we ended our meeting by agreeing each teammember has to design a prototype for the vehicle, so we could compare different designs by next week, sharing our visions and stick the common parts together to form a vehicle every-one agrees with. We also received feedback about our first week’s assignments, and since the Gantt Chart and the Work Breakdown Structure didn’t fit to the expectations, we planned to ameliorate these.

Meeting 3: March 1, 2011
Every member was present.

First of all we compared the different designs everyone made, we quickly agreed our vehicle would have three wheels instead of four, because of different reasons most of the designs were three-wheeled cars. Basically, three wheels would reduce the weight of the cars, and the central wheel would help the vehicle heading forwards by using the rail on the rubber underground. Also, three wheels might require an easier transmission for the car, since we don’t have to power an axis with 2 wheels, but just 1 single wheel. About the materials to shape the body we thought of using plastics, they are cheap and light, easy to laser-cut. This way we would construct a triangular shape with at each corner a wheel, and in de center an adjustable pole to which the solar panel is attached. We’d rather avoid using the 3D printer in the FabLab because of the expensive costs. The tasks for next week are first of all calculating things resistance of rolling, losses, amount of sunlight falling on the panel, secondly to figure out what kind of transmission we will use and already design some parts in Solid Edge, and finally keep the blog up to date with the notes of the meetings. We divided the task so that each member has something to do for next week. Florian is responsible for the calculations, helped by Vantha, Hong and Miengma. The Solid Edge part will be achieved by Sven and Cedric with additional help of Jean. At last Xavier will take care of the wiki-blog, uploading the notes written by Jean.

Meeting 4: March 8, 2011
Every member was present.

This week we received a little feedback from our coach about the calculations we prepared. After that we figured out three things had to be done by next week: first, the calculations need to be corrected and finished. Second, a basic vehicle design should be completed in the CAD software Solid Edge. And third, we should start to explore Simulink and how it all works, so by next week we can start serious programming. We therefor divided the team into groups of 2-3 people who will take care of one of these three tasks.

Meeting 5: March 15, 2011
Every member was present.

First of all, we continued doing the assignments we agreed about last meeting: the Matlab team started the first steps to the completion of the Simulink project and the CAD team started designing the first basic parts of the vehicle such as the chassis, the solar panel and the motor. Aside from that, we figured we'd make most of our vehicle parts in Delrin plastic, so we ordered a 1m*2m plate of this plastic made by a specialized company. We also figured we would use a belt-transmission to connect the motor with the rear shaft, an appropriate gear ratio still has to be confirmed, since our gear calculations still need to be finished and controled by our coach. Finally, we made some sketches of the vehicle, so everyone could project his/her thoughts about it and thus making it easier for the CAD-team to start designing a prototype.

Meeting 6: March 22, 2011
Every member was present.

We basically continued working on the Simulink case, CAD-designs and the design report, keeping in mind our SSV1 deadline on March 25th. We gave our comments about on the first CAD-prototype, since there were still a few issues that needed to be changed, such as the position of the motor, and the shape and position of the panel-holder. We agreed we'd have everything finished 24 hours before the deadline, so there would still be a day to adjust the bad parts and check spelling mistakes.

March 25, 2011
SSV1 finished, however some documents were uploaded at the wrong place and sadly our coach considered this as a delivery past the deadline, which will cost us points in the final note.

Meeting 7, March 29, 2011
Every member was present.

We received some feedback about SSV1 from our coach. Our report design was a little too superficial, because we didn't add any relevant arguments, only pointless descriptions of the materials and parts we would use. The Simulink case was fine overall, only some graphs and calculations had a messy layout at times, making it hard to understand. Aside from that we received some useful advice about our transmission and parts. We agreed we'd all make an effort to purchase decent materials for the vehicle during the Easter break.

Meeting 8, April 26,2011
We brought together almost all the components required to make the SSV work today. Everything necessary for the SSV was present except for the bearings. The bearings were not present yet because they had not arrived from America. We ordered additional bearings from Igus in Germany in the event that the bearings do not clear customs in time.

May 3, 2011
The race took place today. Our SSV was capable of climbing the ramp.

Meeting 9, May 10, 2011
Because case SSV 2 is due at the end of the week, we had a brief meeting where we broke out tasks for each individual. These tasks will be completed tomorrow night such that there is enough time to reflect and revise.