text:
Talk:Psycholinguistics/Articulatory Phonetics

By far my biggest concern with this chapter is the lack of citations. The text is for the most part quite well-written, but barely any of your statements are backed up with evidence through citations. Furthermore, it seems like you haven’t used any primary sources, and are using only linguistics textbooks for your information. The whole point of this is to engage with primary literature ourselves and synthesize it into a new secondary source, not summarize an existing secondary source. Maybe you did do a lot of primary research and just haven’t put it into your citations yet, but the reader should know the context of your information, how it developed, and what the current situation is in this field. I don’t really see any of that. There’s a lot of really interesting information here, but it seems to all be third-hand, which makes it frustrating to review!

The other issue I noticed was with the structure of the chapter: overall, it was well-organized, but there were many instances (as I’ve mentioned above) where you discussed or referred to concepts that you hadn’t yet defined, leaving the reader confused. You are a guide leading your reader through a warren of potentially unintelligible information, and the reader should work to understand and apply the information you give them, not work to find the information in the first place! As specific examples, the whole section on cardinal vowels is out of place – it should come after the information on height and fronting. As well, the reader can’t “note that even with high vowels, the tongue is nowhere near as high as it would be for a stop or fricative consonant” if you haven’t talked about consonants yet; likewise, when you talk about diphthongs, throwing around terms like “the vowel equivalent of either affricates or consonant clusters” doesn’t make sense unless the information is presented in the right order.

One thing that would be really, really helpful in cases where defining every term would be too tedious (or in addition to defining terms!) is to put in wikilinks to the relevant articles (e.g. for “pulmonary consonant” the first time you use it). I put in links to the wikipedia articles that were originally linked in the header of the consonant chart, but expanding those terms would also be helpful, room permitting: you may know what Palv. and Ret. stand for, but the reader probably doesn’t! As well, I found the handmade diagrams and examples of the different types of sounds really helpful for understanding, and those should be added (as much as possible) to the sections lacking them.

The tone and focus of the chapter were both very well-done. The style of writing was appropriate and at the right introductory-yet-scientific level, and the information provided was on-topic and useful for this specific area of linguistics. However, there were some times when your wording was ambiguous or contradictory. It would be worthwhile to read through your chapter from the perspective of a beginner and note those places. Particular examples I noticed include the definition of a vowel: in the introduction you state that vowels are distinguished by the placement of the tongue, then later say that they are defined by mouth shape. As well, in the section on stops, you state that they “can be released fully, or direct the air not out of the mouth, but into the next sound,” but then say that they “are released either into a vowel or another stop” in the affricatives section. Can they be fully released in speech or not? Which is accurate?

A few miscellaneous comments: first of all, I love the fact that you included an epigraph. I put in line breaks for ease of reading, but that’s just a formatting issue. I may borrow this idea for my own chapter… Also, a chapter summary of some sort would be a good way to make sure the reader knows what the most important points are. I also find that the practice of putting a list of relevant links and related topics at the end of Wikipedia articles is really useful (see an example here).

--jnvincent 05:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your insightful comments. I'll try to consider them carefully as I rewrite the chapter. One problem with using primary sources in a chapter like Articulatory phonetics is that the manners of speech production really haven't changed all that much since primary research was conducted over a century ago.  Languages have been found that make use of previously un-used combinations of manner and place, but no real new manners or places are being investigated.  That said, I will go further into the literature to provide some sense of "where this is coming from", and expand my references as necessary.
 * Secondly, your comments about the ordering of the article are well-noted, and a problem I found myself dealing with on a consistent basis. How do you refer to alveolar stops in the section on alveolar articulation if you haven't mentioned stops, and how do you do the same in the section on stops if you haven't mentioned the Alveolar Ridge?  I'm trying to think of a way to present the information that is less circularly dependent, but I'm not there yet.  Similarly, vowels are notable because they differ from consonants, and vice versa.  Consonants are probably simpler to describe: manner and place of articulation, with very distinct differences between them, so they should perhaps come first.  As I said, I'll carefully consider all suggestions as I rework this chapter into something that is both easier to read and more obviously researched.  Thank you, Aericanwizard 18:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Ottava Rima/archives/2010/nov

Longevity by Cosmic Acceleration Theory
I'm really homeless and there's no hard feelings so shoot away. Mark Williams Krunchlolee 02:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to the theory and my modern physics professor. I'm Aggie from TAMU BSEE from the class of 2002. I'm sure Mr. Adair will correct me if I am wrong.
 * http://physics.tamu.edu/people/showpeople.php?name=Thomas%20W.%20Adair%20III&userid=adair
 * Longevity by Cosmic Acceleration Theory Link http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Longevity_by_Cosmic_Acceleration_Theory

"Liar" is not good
Ottava, I think you're an (big) asset to the community 99% of the time, but next time you call someone a liar or a troll without absolutely clear justification for doing so, I'm going to block you. It's not even that I disagree with the points you're making, but when you say those things you turn a debate into a food fight, and you really need to stop upping the ante like that.

We're a very small community of people who seem to disagree about pretty much everything. That's probably a good thing, but only if we respect one another and keep in mind that there's a person on the other keyboard, and more importantly that we're all sharing the same yoke. --SB_Johnny talk 20:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a clear justification - he attributed a claim about "honor" to people who were clearly opposing such a thing. This was pointed out multiple times and he repeated it. That is disruptive. "Lies" is under the more "serious" of Civility violations and is blockable. I warned him on that very matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a big fat gray area there, because you (and perhaps others) also said some things that seemed to say the opposite but not in so many words. I know you have "good reason" to have a bit of a short fuse with our friend Abd, but honestly: while he is aggravatingly verbose and pedantic, he's also right more often than not.
 * Just please try to keep the level of discourse a bit further from the gutter, 'k? The only thing those kinds of statements achieve is more anger on the part of the person you're addressing, and more despair on the part of the observer. --SB_Johnny talk 20:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The warning was to get him to stop claiming that I or Darkcode view adminship as a badge of honor. I repeatedly stated that it was a job and a job only. He then stopped. If I was too harsh, then I am sorry for that. But I am certain that he can get his message across without having to use the claims. I offered a compromise - having a one time removal of some of the old names. I am positive most will never return. Only Sebmol is on the boarder and he can be contacted - but I assume he is busy with other projects. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think Cormac will probably want to keep a toe in the water too, but maybe not. I just think we can probably achieve most of what you want with friendly emails rather than policies (though we might need to fall back on that for those who don't reply). I know most of those guys, Ottava: they're very well meaning and good people who should be treated as such. If some of them are just plain gone, we'll deal with that after we've dealt respectfully with those who are still at least somewhat interested. Sound ok?
 * And yes, way too harsh! I've been way too harsh before too, as you know ;-). --SB_Johnny talk 20:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with welcoming them back with open arms and fast tracking them through adminship, but I am concerned about someone who left 4 years ago from randomly coming back. It deters people to see how inactive we are. I would rather people think we are a small, very active group than a large, dead group. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

William Haseltine
I deleted William Haseltine partly because you copied and pasted from a website and partly because it is off topic for Wikiversity. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It might have been a good idea to wait until I had finished writing the article before deciding whether or not it is off topic. KBlott 02:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a copyright violation in addition to being off topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Apprpriateness of contribution
Hi Ottava:

It is on my mind to contribute some articles describing interactive circuit design using Microsoft Excel. Basically, they describe setting up a spreadsheet and using Excel's figures to guide the design by plotting trade-offs vs. design variables. I have two uncertainties about this:

1. Will this run afoul of Microsoft copyright restrictions? I know that many books that do similar things in the area of finance appear to be OK with Microsoft, but what has to be done here?

2. Is such instructional material appropriate to WikiVersity? Brews ohare 16:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * 1. I would assume any text based description or "how-to" would not run afoul of any copyright. I would also assume that very limited images of actions in low-quality -could- be considered "fairuse" if it has a strong enough rational.
 * 2. It sounds like it would be. I pinged some other custodians to elicit more responses. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Great; if there are further details, please add them to my Talk page. Brews ohare 16:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, Ottava is on the mark. --SB_Johnny talk 16:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If the focus is using spreedsheets to design interactive circuits, which it sounds like it might be, I suggest as an alternative using screenshots of OpenOffice's Calc to allow for reuse and redistribution without headaches later on. -- dark lama  16:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Fare well
There may be better outcomes possible from the CR than leaving the project. But if you are no longer participating, thank-you for your contributions to en.wv. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Logs from IRC
Here is a log of a conversation I had with Draicone on IRC in response to him saying that he will script a bot to do things and was unwilling to discuss it with the community first.

 Why not?  The policy was not to desysop anyone  as I said, it would force them to actually pay attention  you cant just walk away  or assume everything is done  there is a lot of work to be done and everyone needs to pitch in  and people like you just left  you get rid of the only ones willing to do any work  and pat yourself on the back  congrats!  you win!  you destroyed the project!  what now?  going to disney world!  enjoy!  It should be nice <Ottava> Who are you, a guy who abandoned us after treating a prominent member of our community like shit, to come back and say I don't deserve ops over what? a block of a plagiarist that even SB Johnny said should be blocked? <Ottava> or over deletion of a log that was against our privacy policy <Ottava> there were no policies broken by me <Ottava> You don't care about the project <Ottava> and your song and dance above about not willing to bring it up to the community is just indicitive of that <Ottava> Oh, how nice <Ottava> You came back to a project you shit on two years ago to shit on it again. <Ottava> Does it make you feel proud? <Ottava> You are such a big man <Ottava> I hope you are happy, but I am sure you will just vanish again like you did before, like they all did before

- Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks for sharing this, Ottava. I'm not much of an IRC user but I find the logs posted to WV helpful in understanding different people's perceptions and possible ways forward. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Civility
Ottava - I think the issue with your custodianship status for me fundamentally boils down to civility. My personal opinion doesn't matter that much and I am quite happy to agree to disagree. But disagreement can and ideally should be done as civilly as possible. The problem is that there seem to be quite a few people concerned about you degree of incivility. There is no objective measure of incivility - it is as perceived by the community. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said Ottava, I see my own view as relatively unimportant - it's only one fallible viewpoint, as anyone's is. What matters is what the collective, community view is. If what you say is true, then let's make sure that the community review fairly reflects this. Nothing is decided - people are simply sharing their viewpoints.
 * There may well be ways my own civility could improve - so please feel free to add specifics and suggestions about that to the Jtneill community review and/or my talk page and let's see perhaps how I could improve in that respect. One of your strengths I think is a preparedness to share your viewpoint about others with them. And I appreciate that, for me it is very valuable information. One of your areas for development I think is your receptivity to the feedback of others. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You and Abd
Next time either of you accuses the other of being a liar or troll, implies that the other is out to destroy Wikiversity, makes any comment whatsoever that could be loosely interpreted as a slur on the other's character, makes a statement about how the other is widely seen in a bad light, or otherwise says something that might be interpreted as an attempt to belittle the other, you will be blocked for 24 hours so that you'll have time to cool off. --SB_Johnny talk 17:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you lack the authority to make such declarations. You can be blocked 24 hours for the above, you know. Tag teaming, canvassing, incivility, making accusations without proof, etc, are all behaviors you have done in direct violation of our standards. This is highly inappropriate, especially coming from a user who, over the past 2 years, has no edits outside of such matters that can be seen as drama. You've even wheel warred against a founder, desysopped someone without any right, forced other admin to uphold a ban on Moulton, etc. This is on top of you working with KC and two clear sock puppets to cause disruption here. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava, by that logic you could be blocked for the "warnings" you just put on my page.
 * Just please (please, with a cherry on top!) stop responding to every perceived slight by Abd. I've given him the exact same warning. It's become very much a personal argument between you two, and the public nature of it is unbecoming for persons of your stature. --SB_Johnny talk 18:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry SB Johnny, but no one can possibly consider you "uninvolved". Those warnings were for clearly inappropriate behavior from you, a Crat, who is expected to abide by all of our rules more than anyone else. Your behavior over the past 2 years has been directly destructive, and yet you haven't bothered to keep up with any content or maintenance. Such things are not conducive to a learning environment. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, we don't do cool off blocks. No WMF project does. Your own original statements shows a lack of respect to WMF standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of available custodians that you've taken great pains to point out, I'm "uninvolved enough". It would be different if I were warning you about the rather inappropriate comments you've gotten in the habit of making about me, of course, but my skin is pretty thick when it comes to you. --SB_Johnny talk 18:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Geoff and Darklama are around and did not "vote" or get involved in any of this. That is two admin. And SB Johnny, all of your comments are inappropriate. Your WR comments reflect that. Why is it that you failed to provide any educational content but continue to act in violation of our policies and standards? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I have a project in mind that I will be working on now that I have a bit more free time (try to remember that my occupation keeps me more than busy 8 months out of the year, so I only take on "hobbies" during the winter months). --SB_Johnny talk 18:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Odd. Looking at your contribs reveals that you had a lot of freetime. By the way, you never explained why it is that your language above directly contradicts WMF standards, why you think that you can make such inappropriate claims on your own, and why you bothered to say that no one else was available when you made it clear you never had a problem emailing inactive admin to come vote in support of you in the past. Why is that? It would seem to make a very long and wonderful CR of actual policy violations. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava, if you want to start a CR, please just go ahead and do it. Threatening to do so is just silly. --SB_Johnny talk 18:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * CR's are for discussion only, and the assumption is that the person can learn to not act inappropriately. Your repeated behavior over 2 years makes it seem apparently that any CR would have no affect as you keep repeating the same community wide destructive behavior no matter how many times you are confronted. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, CRs are for discussions that lead to actions. That's why we have a policy about them. --SB_Johnny talk 18:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they are not. They are for discussing past actions and making recommendations for the user that are then discussed. They are not for pushing radical changes, punishments, or any such thing. And voting at the beginning of one highlights the abuse of the process. Did you even bother to read anything on the CR page or related discussions? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, quite the contrary. Hence the policy about CR.
 * And I don't think the people who weighed in are looking to "punish" you, Ottava, they're just trying to set things right and remove what they (and I) see as a hinderence to Wikiversity's possibilities for growth. --SB_Johnny talk 19:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To quote from the CR policy: "When requesting a user conflict-related community review, you must provide links demonstrating the problem, links that show attempts to resolve the problem on your own, and a detailed description of how the edits or actions may violate official policies or guidelines, or otherwise harms Wikiversity. " This did not happen. There were no policies brought up. There was no proof of violation. CR is for discussion, not voting. It is also for policy based discussion as per its demands for Consensus to be obeyed. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The proof is in the puttin'. The difference between the current CR about your actions and the CR you started on Jtniell lies in the extent to which the community was convinced.
 * Again, this isn't about punishing you. In some sense it's not really about you at all. It's about how we want our community to go forward.
 * I'm pretty sure my sense of the community is accurate, and that personal disputes such as the one you and Abd can't seem to let go of should be taken off-wiki, or just dropped altogether. --SB_Johnny talk 19:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Pudding, not "puttin'". And it has nothing to do with what the "community is convinced" about. It has everything to do about putting concerns and recommendations in an easy manner for the user it deals with. There are no votes on punishment or the rest. It is a simple discussion to list concerns in a civil and organized manner. None of that was even demonstrated in the CR you instigated. And your view of the community? If you want the community's view, I will go to the community - post on Countrymike's, Cormaggio's, Leigh's, Geoff's, Mikeu's, etcs talk page to get their input on the matter. You know, the actual community that your canvassing ignored. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm fairly "puttin'" is actually the correct etymology. At least that's the way it's pronounced around here during farmer-to-farmer debates.
 * If you ever find yourself in the position to afford it, I'd really like an OED for Christmas. I have a stand for it, but no OED. --SB_Johnny talk 20:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "The proverb, "The proof of the pudding's in the eating" (often shortened to "the proof is in the pudding")[2] dates back to at least the 17th century.[3]" Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

 * By the way, it is rather strange that SB Johnny claims that the dispute between Abd and I just wont end yet furthered the dispute by instigating the CR then went on WR to cheer it on. It would seem as if he is fundamental to the problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

24 hour block
You and Abd have been blocked for 24 hours per the above warning for this. Please read WP:CALM and spend the next 24 hours thinking about how to remain calm. -- dark lama  03:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't call Abd a liar or anything else. Now, blocks are not for cooling down, so your "calm" statement is a little odd, especially when you suggest that I am "uncalm". Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this is in reference to Wikipedia's blocking policy? --SB_Johnny talk 12:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a look, and this is definitely the sort of thing you were warned about. I think an explanation of the discrepancy between what you're attributing to Moulton vs. what Moulton seems to have actually said is in order as well. --SB_Johnny talk 13:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * By that, you mean not putting in Moulton's insults? Haha, wow. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be such a tease. Go ahead and post the IRC log, from 12:45 AM to 12:50 AM.  Let others decide.  —Caprice 15:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I already posted your two statements that I think were most pertinent. The rest is clutter. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. Clutter.  What a marvelous term of art.  —Caprice 15:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Caprice, maybe you could just post the logs with only your own comments, as it seems unlikely Ottava will agree to having his own posted. --SB_Johnny talk 15:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I waive any claim of incivility against Moulton merely from posting any comment of his made off-wiki within the last week, and would consider him responsible only for what he affirms here without necessity. (Like, "this is what I said on IRC, and it's all true!" Even if it is all true. That's not the point, the point here is what was said then, i.e., what evidence Ottava had on which to base his claims about Moulton's opinion here.) I waive any claim of outing for information about my true identity included therein by Moulton. I do not consent to the posting here of specific personal information, such as my address or phone number, but I doubt this will be relevant. I will affirm, directly, this much: Everything that Moulton said, from what I've seen, was proper, and he could say it here. When I indicate slight reservations, it is because I may not have seen all such logs. --Abd 17:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava, I'd like to post the 5-minute IRC exchange, as noted above. Is there some reason you don't want those sitting in judgment here to see that fragment?  —Caprice 17:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Caprice, now that I've seen the log, I actually think redacting Ottava's comments would be preferable. I don't think anything positive will come from posting those. --SB_Johnny talk 17:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hrmmm. Does that mean that we are not yet ready to improve our understanding and practice of ethics in online reporting?  —Caprice 17:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I did warn Ottava to not make "statement[s] about how the other is widely seen in a bad light", because it tends to make things toxic. --SB_Johnny talk 17:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Notice of RCA request
Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action#Ottava_Rima. --Abd 18:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Keeping issues separate
Hi Ottava. While I know you don't like getting unrequested advice from me for whatever reason, this proposal should probably be broken up, because some might agree with undoing one and not the other, but not both.

Also, please try to avoid comments and responses that go against the spirit of WV:AGF. I realize that's probably hard to do under the circumstances, but it's an absolute necessity if you're going to turn this around. I'm pretty sure I know your opinions regarding certain people's motivations at this point (because you've already said what you think), but I'm confident that you can at least phrase things to avoid repeating accusations of "bad faith".

Again, I know you don't like unsolicited advice, but I'm giving it anyway. --SB_Johnny talk 22:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not a vote. It is a discussion. CR is based on analyzing each person's individual opinion. Breaking it up would suggest a voting mentality, directly frowned upon in our policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Ottava Rima/archives/2010/nov


text:
User talk:Ottava Rima/archives/2010/jun

Cite namespace
Discussion was about a new namespace to do stuff that isn't really determined as to scope. Proposals and such on the matter should go on Colloquium. Discussion should go there. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Butler model
What prompted you to delete this? The page as it stood after I'd reverted the recent vandalism seems fine. Adambro 15:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the history. The same IP was back and forth using it to vandalise. It was an excuse to make illegitimate actions. The page itself isn't anything worth while and is promotional in origin. It is not notable as a term but if it was it would go there. If someone wants to mention the Butler Model is a larger piece of material on tourism, the page could be brought back, but we were one of the top pages for information on it (even though we had no real information) and having vandalism displayed or being vandalism prone isn't that exciting. Tourism exists for the information to be placed there, and it is not as prominent of a page under a completely non-notable term that would not be limited to thin discussion or vandal prone. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the answer to the vandalism problems would be protection. Whilst there is not a Wikipedia article on this subject, a quick search for books using Google for "Butler model" tourism returns 98 books suggesting this is a recognised subject in tourism and an appropriate learning topic. I'm also not sure what you mean when you say the page was "promotional in origin". I don't think speedy deletion was appropriate here and would ask that you consider restoring it with the option of nominating it for regular deletion. Adambro 15:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Already looked through google books and most of the hits are false hits. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that Butler model was being used in anything at all. It was just randomly thrown up and had no material. Now, if you want to be known as an admin who restores inappropriate pages that lack content and would need to be "protected", even though the creator of the content was an IP who would no longer be able to edit it, then fine. But I need only point out this: Only one on that first page deals with tourism. That shows that your eagerness in the matter, combined with your cross wiki history of abuse of ops and the rest, shows that you do not know what you are talking about. Ottava Rima (talk)  15:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I did initially just search for "Butler model" myself and noticed many false hits but if you use "Butler model" tourism you'll notice there are as I've said about 100 books that mention this. Adambro 15:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there are dozens of self published works or tourism guides and a few hits, whereas the word "Butler model" is used in medicine, physics, and the rest. As I said before, there is a page on tourism and if the info needed to be kept, it can be moved there. Right now, Wikiversity was one of the top Google hits for the term, which suggests that 1. it does not deserve to be here as we are the originator of the information and 2. that there was no actual information and that it was instead being constantly vandalised. If there was a page like that, it would be at Wikipedia. If they want to use the model as part of a learning project, it would be at Tourism. This is common sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I must admit I hadn't closely studied the nature of the books in that search but the quick search seemed adequate to establish this was a proper tourism subject rather than something someone had just come up with here. I note you've now moved the content to Tourism and I have no problem with that. Adambro 16:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said before, it could be used within the tourism page but we were the number one hit on Google under Butler model, which isn't good. The books that use it use it as a model when applied. The page here was a stub encyclopedic entry and not being applied. It was created by a guy who, at the Tourism page, used that page to advertise a tour to Goa. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Colloquium
--KYPark (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ottava Rima/archives/2010/jun


text:
User talk:Ottava Rima/archives/2010/jul

User:Abd's probationary custodianship
Just a reminder that the 4-week probationary period is up (7/7/10). -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think with the current issues at the moment, it is not the time yet to put up a full custodianship request - how he handles the current matter will affect how people determine his competence. By starting prematurely. Does that make sense? If not, I have no problem with it going into discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to be reviewed any time. However, note that at no point has my mentor or other administrator asked me to cease any activity. I'd have come to a screeching halt if that had happened. The current matter is a difficult, long-term problem, and, to my recollection, no action I've taken using tools has been reversed other than as the normal process whereby administrative action settles, and what I've done has seemed to enjoy reasonable consensus, which is always my goal. As a user, I have my own opinions, and they can be strong. But as an admin, I'm a servant of the consensus. I've been very careful, actually, trying to act minimally, while still creating possible openings to heal old wounds -- or validating and verifying that the status quo is actually consensus.

 * As an example of caution, I did not block JWSchmidt, even though I saw cause. Since I filed the Request for Custodian Action that is pending, I've considered myself unblocking JWS, possibly with conditions, because that is at this moment an apparent consensus there (unblock, proceeding to Community Review), and closing that discussion. But, hey, Ottava, we seem to be running out of admins. Diego might do something, he's not been involved with JWS yet.

 * What I've seen here since I became an admin is an unexpectedly high level of operational consensus. It's largely delinked from the past and what has happened elsewhere. I see all of the currently active admins as being willing to consider opposing views and to make compromises to find cooperative consensus. Part of the problem with JWS has been his insistence that abuse is continuing, coupled with very specific blaming of the situation on a specific admin, though he's not terribly explicit, it can be pinned down to that, with only a general implication that everyone else is "dishonest," when nobody is being particularly oppressive, the ongoing reversion of Moulton IP edits is routine -- and should be addressed directly when we are ready; it's the status quo until then. Adambro seems to be willing to disregard recusal policy (i.e., a policy we should have if we don't have it yet), but it's not that he's doing outrageous stuff other than that; it's a problem because it inflames self-righteous anger to be blocked by an admin when one is in dispute with that admin, but all this can be discussed as we set policy, with the participation and consent of the community.

 * I have been acting exactly as I'd act had my adminship been "permanent." --Abd 18:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

About Moulton/Caprice
Ottava, you are very involved with Moulton. He's trolling, seeking to provoke you into acting outside what should be recusal policy. Please don't threaten to block him, i.e., Caprice, unless that account specifically is used for abuse, and, in that case, I highly recommend, absent a true emergency, that you request action from another custodian. If he's done what he knows Caprice should not do, what he knows is unacceptable to the community even on his own Talk page, you wil get immediate action, without raising any new questions about "abuse" or a mere appearance of same. Just don't let it be Adambro! That would be worse.

Allow the behaviors of the "two editors," i.e., Caprice and Moulton, to be delinked. There is a very important reason for this, and insisting that Moulton confine himself to Caprice or Caprice will be blocked defeats the purpose of allowing Caprice in the first place. It is not to coerce Moulton into stopping his IP commentary, and, as long as he does not (again) use the Caprice account to violate crucial norms (such as "outing"), blocking that account would be punitive. We cannot prevent IP edits, and if we block Caprice for no Caprice misbehavior, we are falling into his designed trap. Rather, I see Caprice as a trial, so to speak. Is Moulton capable of cooperative behavior when not coerced? Will he use this channel for cooperation as he claimed he wanted to (i.e., to cooperate with Geoff Plourde)?

Consider that there is a war going on, a war some of us inherited and would rather not continue. The war, like most wars, does far more damage than good. I did not open up Caprice, Diego did, and my own opinion was that it was premature. If it's truly premature, then we'll find out soon enough. But for now, for a day at least, Caprice seems to be behaving, leaving open the possibility of the use of the Caprice account for cooperation or what is harmless at worst. Politically, his bluff has been called, but the purpose, as far as I'm concerned, is not to humiliate or "defeat" him, that is his game definition, not mine.

Please consider Caprice as a privileged space, a sanctuary, as it were, a place where a truce is in effect. Outside, the war continues until we find a better way. If we make the place of truce just another battleground in the war, we close possible doors of resolution. Don't arrest the emissary of the other side, give that emissary safe conduct to and from the place of truce. That's the common law of war, and it exists for very good and fundamental reasons. --Abd 18:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Moulton is a globally banned user. There is no recuse policy with that. I did not reblock his talk page or shut down his other account. Any using of IPs to get around a block is blockable. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not assert, Ottava, that you violated any policy. You showed restraint on that, as you note, you did not use your tools with Caprice when Caprice was trolling you. As it happened, I have now reblocked Caprice, and would only consider reversing my decision on that if Moulton positively promises to refrain from using the Caprice account for further disruption -- or "exposure of corruption" as he describes it. There is really no such thing as a global ban, however. There are stewards with the ability to globally lock accounts so that a user cannot log in. That's a form of block, and it applies to an account, not a user, per se, it is not a ban (the stewards manual implies that it should only be used under extreme conditions; the Moulton lock was old, but the recent ones for Thekohser were apparently done without consensus and possibly against it, -- or with some kind of secret agreement, the steward was singularly unclear -- but who pays attention?) There are semantic subtleties here that aren't worth debating at this time, because it's moot. Caprice is blocked because Caprice violated the "offered truce." Simple. This was not an additional offense, because Caprice never promised to restrain himself, that was the error that Diego made, unblocking without obtaining a cooperative agreement, though, to be sure, I don't know what transpired in their off-wiki conversation. I do think Diego was disappointed. Perhaps he will comment.
 * As part of this sequence, I verified that, in fact, the WV block of Moulton, in 2008, was for good cause, by reviewing evidence provided by Moulton. Complicated story, and moot at this point. It is ancient history, or should be; what was important to me was to try to find out if the block should continue. It should, and this has nothing to do with Jimbo Wales, stewards, the events of 2008, but only with Moulton and the present Wikiversity community. Our right to responsible self-determination was my concern, not some particular outcome. --Abd 05:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never stated one way or another if the block from 2008 was correct. I have always taken the stance that I would enforce the block until I was able to get Moulton to stop what I saw as the two behaviors that led to the block. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima, just because something should be done does not mean it can be done. Barry can not be prevented from playing the wiki game. But perhaps you enjoy your avatar's use of the ban-hammer, in which case I think you both are quite silly. WAS 4.250 14:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He can continue playing with sock puppets and the rest all he wants. I just ask that he uses user names instead of real names and that he stops dwelling so much on the "ID cabal" from 2008. That whole thing is dead and gone so there is no real point. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is totally reasonable. Unfortunately, Barry appears to have decided to be An_Unreasonable_Man George Bernard Shaw said "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - WAS 4.250 17:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 * (Joke) The Rima gang of avatars stops the Moulton avatar, forces him out of his car, draws a circle on the ground, orders him to stay in the circle, then uses bats to destroy the car. When they are done, they turn around to see Moulton laughing uncontrollably, and say we just destroyed your car so why are you laughing. Moulton is laughing so hard he can barely get the words out: "I stepped out of the circle three times!!!" (/Joke) - WAS 4.250 15:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly get the joke. As to this being some kind of commentary on the present situation:
 * There is no "Rima gang."
 * Imagining that Moulton wanted help, Rima offered to perform a service if Moulton would agree to a certain condition. Moulton then started burbling here and elsewhere about ultimatums and bullies. No ultimatum was issued, only a positive, if this then this.
 * No car has been destroyed. And especially not with bats. I've seen nobody here perplexed about Moulton laughing. Moulton is doing what he's said he'd do, and is quite transparent.
 * A circle was created, that part is accurate. The circle, User talk:Caprice, was intended as a sanctuary for open communication between Moulton and the community. Various people understood it in different ways, though, some thinking that Moulton was asking to be unblocked. If he did, that was private with Diego Grez, who drew the circle and who has no visible connection with Rima. Grez opened the circle, then when Moulton used it for other than the allowed purpose, specifically to troll Rima for outgraged response, which didn't actually happen, Grez blocked Moulton. Adambro, quite independently, took certain largely irrelevant actions, and has continued enforcing the block by dealing with IP edits by Moulton. Adambro just blocked JWSchmidt, for related disruption, continued for a long time. Rima vigorously opposed that. The "Rima gang," then, must simply be seen as "Wikiversity administrative consensus," which is not functioning as a cabal. Some of us are open to some kind of rapprochment with Moulton, some not. Increasingly not, and not because of any kow-towing to Jimbo or meta, but for our own understanding of the welfare of the community. I see no sadistic usage of the block tool, from any administrator. I do see some technically inappropriate usage, from time to time, but that's normal in a wiki.
 * Ottava, above, is "asking" that Moulton follow what appears to be an almost universal present operating consensus that "outing" not be practiced. Moulton has deliberately used outing to get himself reverted and blocked, in order to then be able to claim that he's being censored and bullied. In fact, he's the bully, and he has been for a long time. That's what I found when I followed up on evidence Moulton provided re the situation. He abused those who approached him with good faith, including Jimbo. We (that is, the rebels) imagine that somehow Jimbo is Power and that therefore there is some special merit in berating and attempting to humiliate him, "speaking Truth to Power." Jimbo's power is quite limited, as it should be, and as he probably wants it to be, long term. Jimbo actually made the same request to Moulton as Ottava did above, and he did so privately, and with respect and courtesy. Moulton pissed in his face, so to speak. Absolutely, Moulton had previously confronted some serious abuse. But he didn't know, and apparently still doesn't know, when and where to stop. So, for now, this is the end of the story. I see nothing new or useful coming from him. --Abd 17:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd, just let him say his peace. You don't need to respond. Moulton is Moulton, and I am I. You don't need to worry about my relationship with Moulton so much. There are other things to care about. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Community Review
Notice: You are part of a Wikiversity community review. --JWSchmidt 10:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Your claim about a ban
Please explain how this is disruptive. I've repeatedly asked you for evidence that Moulton was banned and you claim that I already know. I do not know. Ottava Rima, Please link to the community discussion where Moulton was banned. --JWSchmidt 14:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Moulton on Beta
As you may be aware, JWS on Beta has taken action to detach Moulton's account to get around the global lock which has enabled him to now log in and edit there. I'm worried that may be inviting Moulton to use Beta beyond its scope and take conflicts from en to Beta but more specifically, I noticed a recent edit to your talk page there. I just wondered whether you were aware of that. It seems to relate to a comment you made in 2008 inviting him to participate in a trial research project. It isn't immediately obvious whether that invitation is still open so I thought if you weren't already aware, you might wish to review that recent edit. Regards. Adambro 22:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That was content from Moulton's deleted user talk page, fyi. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Community review topic
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)? 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 at the community review or remove the block that you imposed on Moulton. --JWSchmidt 02:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Moulton has his own community that he can do whatever he wants with. If we are really so unjust here, why do you still bother to edit? Why not let those who are astray stay that way and go help those who can be helped? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Moulton has his own community that he can do whatever he wants with" <-- Moulton is a valued member of the Wikiversity community, but I would not go as far as to say that he can do what ever he wants. There are one or two small problems in his way. "why do you still bother to edit?" <-- Ottava Rima, have you ever heard this, "|If it's not okay, it's not the end"? "those who are astray" <-- I don't think I've ever used the word "astray"...who do you think is astray? "help those who can be helped" <-- Is that what was going on here? --JWSchmidt 08:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Moulton is not a member of our community, valued or not. He has his own community. Go there and be with him where it is just and free. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Moulon is no a member of our communiy" <-- Maybe User:Moulon Rouge will be created soon. --JWSchmidt 13:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The "t" on my keyboard hasn't been working. That should have been obvious. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ottava Rima/archives/2010/jul


text:
User talk:Ottava Rima/archives/2010/aug

Custodian_feedback
Custodian_feedback has been filed regarding your recent behavior. I hope that we can resolve our current dispute there, because discussion between us obviously is not cutting the mustard. I will ask, meanwhile, as an alternate dispute resolution pathway prior to a Community Review, if there is someone you would trust as a mediator or arbitrator. --Abd 05:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

How do your actions support the Wikiversity project?
Ottava Rima, why did you asserted that you are the top organizer of Wikiversity, apparently positioning yourself as being "special" in some way? Ottava Rima, why have you adopted the strange position that you can impose blocks not forbidden by policy, while Wikiversity policy says that blocks are only for preventing repeated vandalism or other purposes explicitly prescribed by policy or defined by consensus? Ottava Rima, why did you impose a bad block and violate the Wikiversity civility policy by calling for an unjustified block? Ottava Rima, why did you fail to provide evidence to support accusations that you made against Moulton (specifically: 1, 2)? Why did you make a wild accusation and alienate a new member of the Wikiversity community? Ottava Rima, why did you use the Wikiversity chat channel inappropriately, for example, to bully another member of the community? Ottava Rima, please explain how your actions (above) support the Wikiversity project. --JWSchmidt 01:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets see - I've been the contact between various university faculty, professors, and the rest, and, for quite a few months, I was the only admin who was anything that could be considered "active". By the way, why would you think you can claim anything about blocks when we have no policy? Only policy can be enforced. That is how things work, remember? Furthermore, JWS, it has been a long time since you bothered to make any content. You stopped contributing here long ago. And you know exactly what my conditions are for unblocking Moulton - he has stated that he does not want to be unblocked so no block made after that can really be bad, as he even agrees to stay blocked. As a question, why did you use the IRC chat channel to repetitively bully others and why do you continue to make only bullying posts? You do realize that the term "bully" is subjective and that your actions meet the same threshold, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava Rima, please provide a link to the Wikiversity community discussion where you were designated as the "top organizer of Wikiversity". "we have no policy" <-- There is existing policy on use of the block tool, particularly existing policy that prescribes how the block tool can be used. Ottava Rima, you claimed that, "we have no policy", but there are four existing Wikiversity policies that explain exactly how the block tool can be used, starting with Custodianship and including Civility. Existing policy says that the block tool is used to prevent repeated vandalism or as otherwise prescribed in policy or otherwise determined by consensus. "no block made after that can really be bad" <-- I don't understand the distinction that you seem to be making between "bad" and "really bad". The block you imposed on Moulton violates Wikiversity policy and disrupts the Wikiversity Mission. "why did you use the IRC chat channel to repetitively bully others and why do you continue to make only bullying posts?" <-- Ottava Rima, please list the people who you think were bullied. "You do realize that the term "bully" is subjective and that your actions meet the same threshold, right?" <-- I don't agree, which is why chat channel logs should be made public, so that the Wikiversity community can decide about misbehavior in the community chat channel. Objective observers can recognize bullying and threats. Ottava Rima, how do your actions such as violations of policy, bullying, alienation of Wikiversity community members and preventing Wikiversity community members from collaborating with Moulton support the Wikiversity project? --JWSchmidt 05:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You aren't an objective observer and a subjective victim a the same time. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

List of custodian mentors
Would you please add yourself to List of custodian mentors? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I only mentor on a special basis - Pmlineditor was someone I knew for a long time and could help out when it was needed. Abd because I told him if no one else bothered to offer then I would as a last resort. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you list yourself (since you have been mentoring), along with conditions under which you mentor? I'm trying to get the page more up to date and reflective of the mentoring options. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

dealing with things
"your way of describing the community here" <-- What do you mean? If someone objects to policy violations and other practices that disrupt Wikiversity then you feel the need to block them? "you have an alternative site that allows you to be with Moulton" <-- I don't understand what you are trying to say. Every Wikiversity participant can use other websites, does that mean you are motivated to try to block them from editing? "What would you contribute if you stayed?" <-- My main interests are described on my user page. I want nothing more than to return to the way I participated at Wikiversity from 2006 to 2008 when Wikiversity was a fun and exciting experiment in online collaborative learning. "Is it really that horrible to bury things in the past and to just deal with things as they are now?" <-- You seem to be postulating a stark dichotomy between the past and the present. I'm not comfortable with overly-simplistic dualistic thought processes. My friends and collaborators have been brutally harassed and driven away from Wikiversity. Each day more Wikiversity participants are treated rudely rather than being welcomed to participate here. I am excluded from participating in the community chat channel by misguided sysops who abuse their positions of trust and responsibility. "just deal with things as they are now" <-- I am doing so, mostly using the deck that you handed to me. --JWSchmidt 04:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Civility and transparency
I invite you to adopt a more civil tone than was evident in several of your edits (particularly towards SB_Johnny and Abd) leading up to Abd's warning to you and blocking of you for incivility on 29 July 2010. Whilst I would have preferred dialogue over blocking, I do nevertheless agree with Abd that there was a level of incivility that warranted being addressed. I also invite you to let edits such as incivility warnings and block notifications on your talk page to stand in the interests of transparency. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 15:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you are in a minority, as many other people have disagreed. Furthermore, the warnings against Abd for being outright nasty to JWS, to other people and the rest, make it obvious that he is a hypocrit. Your latest stances, especially with your approach to claiming that an outright factually wrong statement about dinosaurs is some how a "learning page", your abuse of crat authority, and the rest, makes it seem like you are not in a proper role to judge anything. Jtneill, you stomped over Juan and Geoff. You stomped over Darkcode. You are abusing your authority. Take a week off. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't feel stomped on. Many other people have disagreed with what? That you need to adopt a more civil tone? Many people perhaps need to take some time off as was suggested in the Colloquium. -- dark lama  17:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to your putting Abd up for a vote and the calls for you to be punished for it. You were following clear community precedence found in the only other instance of a mentor not approving of the mentee after the temporary custodianship time ended. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did Jtneill call for me to be punished and what did Jtneill say? -- dark lama  17:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Others called for punishment. Jtneill said you were acting inappropriately even though Terra's Candidacy showed clear community acceptance of such actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If anyone called for "punishment," it would only be JWS, who actually is just claiming that a series of actions are "rogue," with no discrimination as to what would be sysop actions or editorial actions. To my knowledge, there are no "others," plural, and it's not true even for JWS, for the only "punishment" possible would be a block, and JWS would surely oppose that, or desysop, and desysopping for a simple attempt to simplify community process and not waste time, even if incorrect, would never result in a loss of bit. However, Ottava, you almost certainly will lose your bit, and rapidly, if you don't wake up and realize that you are violating civility policy, and that's very serious for a sysop. This isn't a threat, it's a warning, and I have no personal enforcement power. Just the power to warn of a coming danger. --Abd 18:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You do realize that you crossed the threshold for harassment a few days ago, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I do not. I presume that if I am crossing a threshold for harassment, I will be warned on my Talk page, specifically. Is this a threat to block me for harassment if I disregard this comment, Ottava? --Abd 18:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This shows how to deal with perceived incivility. Making hundreds of kb of statements accusing people of being incivil and the rest is not on that list. Now, there are many things that would be attributable to your comments: "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another", "Calling for unjustified bans or blocks", "Using straw men", etc. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, especially new people without any history of quality contribution or commitment to the project who could be seen as a disruption only account. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I'd assume that I'd be warned by someone other than you, if I was crossing the line as seriously as you claim. To repeat, is this a threat to block me for harassment? It is a simple question, Ottava, the answer should be pretty simple. Should I be concerned that you, personally, will block me? --Abd 19:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you haven't bothered to pay attention, but I don't block users. I don't believe in user blocks. It is just putting a mirror up to you to see that your own calls for something would, if go into effect, cause you far more problems. You want to set up a world of harsh justice without any real evidence or discussion, then you would be first to be removed. JWS has pointed out how your language and actions are far too harsh, far too rough, and that you go at things in a way too heavy handed manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a simple answer to a simple question. I seek no "harsh justice," I seek protection of the wiki from, among other things, incivility, which is poisonous. And let me ask something specific of you. Your mention above of hypocrit [sic] crossed the line. That's a personal attack, and was completely unnecessary in the context above, and represented direct defiance of Jtneill's quite gentle warning. Will you strike it? I'll mention that, in Islam, this is a far more offensive charge than "liar." My custodial actions are under review, which will probably continue for a time. The warning above, from the timing, very likely proceeded from a careful and detailed and neutral review of my actions, which included evidence of the basis for them, see . And yours? --Abd 19:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want me to remove incivility, then I would have to wipe just about every single post made by you on Wikiversity dating to the beginning of JWS's community review. You are a hypocrite, there is no insult there. You impose one standard and pretend you don't need to follow it. If you don't like it, stop promoting double standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You just repeated the incivility, that's noted. You seem unclear on the concept of incivility. I could indeed be a hypocrite, but it would still be uncivil to call me one unless two conditions are established, the first of which is necessity. The second is secondary, and it is the provision of proof. The standard would probably be high. You also seem unclear on the concept of asking a user to retract an uncivil statement. I have asked you to strike a specific uncivil comment of yours, not one of mine. You are perfectly free to do the same for me. If I don't do it, it means I'm willing to lean on the statement not being uncivil, but being a reasonably necessary statement. If I have been violating incivility policy, where are the warnings and blocks for disregarded warnings? Your statement above will not stand up to review. Period. As to liking it or not, I don't care. I will follow policy and consensus regardless of what I like, and if I don't like them, I'll change the policy -- with consensus -- or I'll leave. If I'm warned for incivility, you can be sure I will not delete the warning, nor will I disregard it. I will respect it, which usually means I will follow what it suggests. But a vague charge like yours, there is nothing to follow. Anyway, this is becoming repetitive and is apparently just tempting you to repeat the incivility, so, good luck, and I'll leave behind one piece of advice, you may take it or leave it. Get some independent advice from someone you trust. If there is no such person, I suggest you are in an untenable situation. --Abd 20:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to follow the suggestions on how to deal with civility by ignoring you now. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with Jtneill.--Juan de Vojníkov 11:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, now be fine with staying around for more than a month. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ottava. I took your advice to have a bit of a break, thankyou, for that, I appreciate it. Thanks for your other talk page, email, and community review feedback about my editing etc. I'll take a look and respond in due course. Sincerely, James. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ottava. May I respectfully encourage you to let edits such as this civility warning stand in the interests of transparency? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. He should be blocked for blatant trolling. I have the right to state someone's accusations about my -feelings- is a lie. That is no incivil. He has been blatantly abusing every single standard we have, hounds people constantly, and not put up anything worth while in terms of learning content. He is lucky that I didn't just block him for such ridiculous nonsense. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

108.1.128.128
Hi. I've unblocked 108.1.128.128 since the IP is already blocked via the range block of 108.1.128.0/22. Adambro 17:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked through the log and I couldn't find that specific one. Thanks for getting that range. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Copyright
Evidence can be found at here and at several other websites and newsgroups. I placed portions of the text into Google to locate the website, then used Ctrl+F to perform a standard text to text direct comparison and confirm. Geoff Plourde 19:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Contributing to the main Wikiversity namespace
Dear Ottava,

You make excellent contributions here in welcoming new users, and to the main namespace when you take time to do so. You also make 10x as many contributions to the talk and project namespaces... I think that if you were to try to consciously edit course materials for every few edits you make related to policy, the project and local community would both benefit. I am making an effort to do this myself.

Regards, –SJ + > 02:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done that. However, I don't necessarily do it under this name so that I can release material under GFDL as I mentioned to you. In two weeks, I will have two others to come over to help me. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Wales reporting
May I ask why you are reporting Wales about what is going on in here?--Juan de Vojníkov 06:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Multiple Stewards told me to because of his relationship with both SB Johnny's custodian status and Thekohser's account status. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with Jimbo knowing about anything going on here. Jimbo has resigned his intrusive Founder tools, but he is completely welcome to comment here and to make requests, and, as far as I'm concerned, his requests will receive careful respect and consideration and, if called for, rapid response. I generally advise against secrecy, and especially decisions made secretly, however, for it can create a poor appearance and damage WMF reputation, and I'm concerned about "multiple stewards told me to," because those obviously were rapid communications, apparently off-wiki, with hasty questions or requests, as if we were dealing with an emergency situation, and we have no information other than speculation about the content of what Ottava told these stewards in order to obtain that advice. It is bad process to ping a high-level functionary about minor stuff than can be handled locally. There is a member of the WMF Board who is active here and who is fully aware of the situation, and, I'm sure, would not hesitate to involve stewards if needed. (He has properly recused from acting himself, though he could certainly do so in an emergency.) Stewards would then make a decision whether or not to ask Jimbo. We have no idea what steward advised Ottava to ping Jimbo, but ... that was bad advice, on the face. Perhaps it has not been accurately represented. --Abd 15:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Jimbo gave up the ability to block. He did not give up his other abilities nor did the Foundation itself give up the ability to lock and globally ban users. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Jimbo gave up a whole series of tools, and with one exception, gave up all "control" tools, including the right to add and remove user rights (such as custodian or 'crat). The exception was oversight, and that was only kept for technical reasons, the software does not allow separation from the ability to read oversighted edits from the ability to oversight them. (This means the ability to delete stuff so that even ordinary sysops cannot read them.) Jimbo clearly wanted to retain tools that would allow him to see everything going on, and he quite wisely realized that the time had come for him to back off from actually being the one to act outside of the wikis that specifically allow him this. (And his actions, even there, have become rare as hen's teeth.) This is, in fact, quite in line with the role of God-King, absent the sovereignty part. (Jimbo has no authority except by influence through prestige and by the permission of the Board.) Ottava is correct, the Foundation has the right to globally lock users and to make certain other global decisions, the Board has the right to, through Staff bits, do anything it decides, within the constraints of law, and nothing we do here can do anything to resist that, aside from walking. But they won't do that unless it's absolutely needed, because they do not want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. In the future, watch, if they have a problem with decisions a local wiki makes, they will only act (directly or through stewards) with intrusive tools, in an emergency, and they will then consult the community, or they will simply ask a community to handle a problem. Satisfy their critical concerns, they will go away.

 * So what does the "global lock" have to do with this? I think that Ottava is referring to the probability that this community is going to decide to unblock Thekohser, whom Jimbo, in the past, declared "globally banned." However, at most points subsequently, the actions of stewards have been consistent with allowing local wikis to make a local decision on this. At first, the global lock was lifted, and then stewards went around and replaced it with local blocks, thus allowing local sysops to reverse it. That was the stated reason! Then the global lock was replaced, without explanation, but the obvious one is that the 'crat delinking workaround had been found, thus even if there is a global lock, it can be locally defeated by a 'crat. They would prefer this solution, I suspect, because it requires a higher-level decision locally, not so erratic, or it requires going to a steward. It sets a default ("global ban") which can be locally reversed (Thus it remains in accord with the consensus to allow local control.)
 * If I'm correct in this analysis, it will be very difficult to get the global lock lifted, because it represents a high-level compromise. I wouldn't even try at this point, it would be way too disruptive. --Abd 19:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * [Fell off my chair.] ... taking a half a day to recover from the shock :-) ... On the other hand, there is a huge mess on Wikibooks now over this issue.. My speculation above about "high-level compromise" might be incorrect. Mike.lifeguard, who set the global lock as a steward, might just be running a renegade operation. His comments on Wikibooks would seem to indicate that he did not know about the workaround, and his intention in replacing the lock was to enforce it as a block, everywhere. Not to allow local decisions. He is acting there, strongly, against apparent consensus, wheel-warring against another 'crat, as if he owns Wikibooks, effectively calling a set of long-time users, including a 'crat, "trolls." He effectively just yanked checkuser from the 'crat by resigning it himself and requesting the withdrawal, in the middle of the dispute. Of course, he's a steward, so he has checkuser anyway, from that flag, so what he just did was remove from the community its only independent checkuser. But he's damn sure he's right, and firmly in charge. --Abd 13:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr
but I did ;) I decided a while ago to not post to WR, but I still get links to it, from time to time. Battleground mode, still, I see. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should stop your trolling, edit warring, and cross wiki destroying of pages. As you can see, you trolled the wrong person and just lost half of your supporters. One more screw up and you'll be gone and wont be getting such a cushy second chance as you got. Seeing your history of not producing anything worth while but making a lot of cross wiki disturbances, it would be good to have you banned again. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not the one banned, am I? Jeers, Jack Merridew 20:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 Rima (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * and my ban appeal was accepted ;) Is there an WV:AGF page around here somewhere? Ah, good; the usual shortcut. Jack Merridew 22:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you bother to read what my ban "appeal" stated? And I believe you honestly think you have good intentions while screwing up everything. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I recall that it was said that you posted it somewhere off-wiki, but don't believe I ever even saw a link to it. Here? WR? If I honestly think I have good intentions, then I do have good intentions. I don't think that I'm screwing up anything. I've not really been following your travails post-en:wp. I do see some of the flare-ups, though. They seem regular and across the board. I hear you're in trouble here, too. I've seen the broad outline, but it's a matter for those with long-term commitments to this project.
 * Abd asked that I not 'poke' you, so I'm ready to call this thread non-productive. If you post a link to your appeal, I'll take a look. Jack Merridew 02:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In trouble here? You mean Abd said that, the guy who came here, disrupted a lot, and is closer to a ban each day? Maybe you should recheck your sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No link to your appeal? Ya, I'm sure you saw the post on my talk. I don't know him, really. I know SBJ rather better. Jack Merridew 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Greetings and Salutations
Ottava, I believe we have only crossed paths once before, so I understand your suspicion. I explain my opinion, offered in opposition to yours, by saying this: Critical voices should be heard, and even the disgruntled deserve a place at the table. →StaniStani  20:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 Rima (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't you a 'person from WR?' On Wikipedia, I have backed up those who were buffeted by the majority: Giano, Malleus, yourself, Everyking - without an 'equal protection' clause minority views have a tendency to be obliterated by the majority, or even by a small group of entitled members. My view is consistent and accountable thereby. →StaniStani  21:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No one from WR would claim me as one of theirs, I can tell you that. And I don't want to be included with others. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I supported, too, however, that was then. Jack Merridew 02:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Pastor Theo supported also. Many sock puppets of banned users supported. You shouldn't be happy that you are in their company. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Saw that. Any of the others still unblocked? Methinks that sort prolly supported you for the same reason as Lara in the straw poll. I had not figured you out, back then. Rectified. Jack Merridew 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 Rima (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. John hooked us up, we discussed this on email and all was fine. I formatted the text, added a lot of the footnotes by hand. Sheesh. Jack Merridew 06:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See hundreds of links to your text here:
 * http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Jack+Merridew&offset=20080901
 * You got credit. Jack Merridew 06:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And I was en:unbanned 6 months before John nom'd me for adminship at wikisource. He did offer to, earlier, though. 07:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * User talk:SB_Johnny
 * Jack Merridew 07:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur, this is an absurd claim Ottava. Jack did a ton of work because you didn't want to do it, understandably because this type of wikisource work is mind-numbing work.  You were mentioned often, inc. in the sysop nom at s:Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Jack_Merridew.  He put a lot of work into those Horace pages, and you should be wary about discounting his efforts until you have an appreciation for how much effort is involved; that said, his sysop nom. was due to many other factors, esp. varied technical and language skills, and putting his shoulder to the plow on less than glamorous projects which help develop our vision, and solving some niggling technical issues along the way.  Around that time I was nominating anyone who had crossed the 1000 wikisource edit threshold; Jack had 2.5 that. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn' want to do it? That is a lie. I didn't even know what Wikisource was. I already demonstrated that once someone took me through it I was highly capable of working there and helping. And he did a ton of work? Do you know how many weeks it took to transcribe that document? He put in crap. He only got through any of that stuff because of my effort and if I ever would have known that he was taking credit for it I would have gone there, opposed, and demanded sanctions. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My effort to discuss my opinion with Ottava has taken a nasty turn. Jack, I don't appreciate your interruption. Ottava, I am a mere dabbler at Wikipedia, I have a completely undistinguished (and nearly extinguished) writing career which I am working on expanding and enriching here and some other online fora. I intend to research and discuss (not rigorously, but I hope in an interesting way) the relationship between author and reader. I participate in community affairs if I feel the community would benefit from my opinion. If you don't feel I would make a valuable member of the community, I hope you could come to a different conclusion at a later time. I am not a shark, I am but a minnow in the Wiki* pool. →StaniStani  15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ottava Rima/archives/2010/aug


text:
User talk:Ottava Rima/archives/2010/oct

Hey!
Life keeps me fairly busy. I'm sorry I don't poke around more. How are things around here? The Jade Knight (d'viser) 05:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Extremely busy and without any help, as it has been for two years. I like how a handful of people come out during the summer, try to take over, then flee into the night when real work comes up. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, missed your response because you didn't post to my talk page. I'm curious as to what you mean by "try to take over".  When I, personally, work on Wikiversity, I work with specific goals and I get specific results.  Perhaps I don't get as much done as others, but I do what I can.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 16:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the summer of drama which resulted in all the people so concerned about how Wikiversity works suddenly fleeing again when people show up to participate. I don't mind if people want to change things as long as they are around when it is time to actually do the work. And you don't have to worry, you do plenty. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ottava Rima/archives/2010/oct


text:
User talk:Ottava Rima/archives/2010/dec

Blocked 3 days
Just days after your previous block for civility and your recent contributions continue to be uncivil. Using edit summaries to criticise others for not doing something is rude and disrespectful to others in the community. This is particularly problematic where you are welcoming new users who shouldn't find themselves caught up in this. You seem to fail to appreciate that any constructive edits people make should be welcomed and they shouldn't be attacked for not doing more. Such an attitude seems a good way of alienating new users or just those who are busy in real life and whilst unable to devote as much time as you might like to Wikiversity, may still have very useful contributions they can make. If, when your block expires, you are unable to put aside your grievances when performing tasks like welcoming new users then I'd suggest you refrain from such activities. Adambro 11:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Adambro, you should immediately take this block to Request Custodian Action for review, because of obvious conflict of interest. This has nothing to do with whether the block is proper, in itself, or not, but you should generally, absent emergency, not be the one to block an editor with whom you have had conflict. You do not need to undo the block if you feel that there is an emergency and that waiting for review by others would cause harm, but, in requesting review, you should explain the emergency. I have not checked yet to see if you have, indeed, requested review. so my comment here may be uninformed. Review, however, should definitely be on-wiki so that it's transparent. I don't have time at the moment to pay much attention to this. Thanks. --Abd 12:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Adambro, having now looked at the allegedly uncivil edits, I strongly disagree with blocking for the mild level of criticism, directed at no specific user, in those edit summaries. Please unblock Ottava immediately. Thanks. --Abd 12:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 * I thought it looked a bit over-reactive at first, but being snarky while welcoming is worse than not welcoming at all. It's not so much that the "criticism" wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but rather that it's a horrible introduction to the community. --SB_Johnny talk 14:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Well I more or less am going to try to stay out of this, I would like to make to make two comments. First, I am not crazy about the edit summary myself, but a warning, or even an attempt at friendly discussion before blocking might have created less drama.  I think we have gotten our point across well enough at this point, perhaps Abd is correct that we should consider unblocking. Thenub314 21:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Agreed on all counts, but given the discussion below (not to mention prior history), I'm not sure friendly discussion would have taken hold. A simple "sorry, I see why that was inappropriate" would do wonders. --SB_Johnny talk 23:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "A simple "sorry, I see why that was inappropriate" would do wonders. " I feel the same, and seeing as how you lack consensus, it seems that it would be necessary soon for you to post such. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Ottava, by the august authority vested in me as a sovereign User of Wikiversity :-) -- I apologize on behalf of the Wikiversity community for this block. I don't advise cluttering the history of those talk pages with "Shameful," nor do I agree that it is so shameful, welcoming users is not an emergency, and you are quite welcome to continue the task if you wish, as well as reviewing Recent Changes for vandalism.

 * Because of the damage done by hasty and over-reactive blocks -- which tend to provoke users, who, if there were not uncivil before, become so -- were I a custodian, I'd have undone this as an emergency, though I would also, as I've advised Adambro, consult the Wikiversity community and the administrative community specifically.

 * The former task, welcoming users, was one where you were so efficient that, I suspect, others stopped looking for first edits of users, an example of how good work can suppress other good work.

 * However, Wikiversity is a community that tolerates general criticism, and your edit summaries did not attack any specific user at all, and were not blockworthy, especially without warning. I very much doubt that, should Adambro not undo the block, the community will support this block, it routinely tolerates far worse "incivility," and those edits did not rise to incivility, in fact.

 * Thanks for welcoming the users and finding vandalism. However, that wasn't exactly vandalism.... It was anonymous comment, placed together with anonymous but apparent prior author personal comment. Unskillfully done, to be sure. But not vandalism.... Good luck. --Abd 13:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Funny, because it is you who alienates users and doesn't do any of the work here. There was plenty of vandalism and people not welcomed, many dating back quite a few days. You aren't doing your job. You need to resign now, Adam, and go. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 * That's a personal attack and is inappropriate. Adrignola 15:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying someone alienates users and isn't doing work isn't a personal attack. Personal attacks are calling someone stupid or the such. However, making false claims of personal attacks, which is clearly defined, is a major violation of our civility standard. Ottava Rima (talk)  15:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So much for my attempt to intevene. Maybe you should start a community review on me? Adrignola 16:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. You do quite a lot of at WikiBooks and are quite admirable. Remember, I thought you would be a good addition to the admin crew and still would. Hard to find dedicated people. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let us know when you're done biting the newbies, making snarky comments to make a point about how important you are, and biting sysops from Wikibooks who are nice enough to at least check in here once in a while. I originally thought 3 days seemed a bit disproportionate, but your response so far isn't promising. --SB_Johnny talk 18:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't bitten any newbies. That is what you have done for failing to welcome people including those who made dozens of edits before you even gave it a thought. It is completely irresponsible of you. Even Abd thinks it is wrong, which shows how unbelievably in the wrong you are. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the edit summaries of concern were as follows, "Shameful that no one welcomed you": -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) (show/hide) 11:20, 2 December 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Enric Naval   (comment removed) (top)
 * 2) (show/hide) 11:18, 2 December 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Nev1  (comment removed) (top)
 * 3) (show/hide) 11:18, 2 December 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Loosmark  (comment removed) (top)
 * 4) (show/hide) 11:16, 2 December 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Karadahian  (comment removed) (top)
 * 5) (show/hide) 11:13, 2 December 2010 (diff | hist) Book:The Dynamic Book  (comment removed)
 * 6) (show/hide) 11:08, 2 December 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Samer.hc  (comment removed) (top)
 * 7) (show/hide) 11:08, 2 December 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Plindenbaum  (comment removed) (top)
 * 8) (show/hide) 11:05, 2 December 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Llywrch  (comment removed) (top)
 * 9) (show/hide) 11:05, 2 December 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Jape  (comment removed) (top)
 * 10) (show/hide) 11:05, 2 December 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Norma  (comment removed) (top)
 * 11) (show/hide) 11:05, 2 December 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Mlp01  (comment removed) (top)
 * 12) (show/hide) 11:05, 2 December 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Juanita45  (comment removed) (top)
 * 13) (show/hide) 11:05, 2 December 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Mariaeugenia  (comment removed) (top)
 * 14) (show/hide) 11:05, 2 December 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Andreabidone  (comment removed) (top)
 * 15) (show/hide) 11:05, 2 December 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Salsadancer01  (comment removed) (top)
 * 16) (show/hide) 11:05, 2 December 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Lau  (comment removed) (top)
 * 17) (show/hide) 11:05, 2 December 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Odalcet  (comment removed) (top)
 * 18) (show/hide) 11:05, 2 December 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Hannes Röst  (comment removed) (top)
 * 19) (show/hide) 11:05, 2 December 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Macca13  (comment removed) (top)
 * 20) (show/hide) 11:04, 2 December 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Lstrashny  (comment removed) (top)
 * 21) (show/hide) 11:04, 2 December 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:Vapmachado  (comment removed) (top)
 * Yep, posted that at WR already. No personal attacks but a lamenting that so many people spent so long before being welcomed. The Foundation made it clear that such would not qualify as delrev, so SB Johnny doing such isn't really that great. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 * As far as I'm aware, the use of revision deletion is up to each project to decide upon. If no policy explicitly addressing it has been formulated at Wikiversity, there are no limitations on its use beyond common sense. Adrignola 21:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a major slippery slope argument - none of my actions used in CR violated any policy, especially since we didn't even have a blocking or deleting policy, yet that didn't matter. It would seem that the two users are very biased in the matter and that they reacted in a manner to cause a chilling effect and show dominance than out of any desire to help further this academic community. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Ottava, there's nothing particularly positive for a new user to get a snarky edit comment on their very first message. --SB_Johnny talk 23:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Snarky that I am apologizing to them for being ignored? Wow. You really like redefining words. The only one being "snarky" here is you, and this is clear abuse done because you are embarrassed. You don't like the fact that someone apologizes because you, Adambro, etc, are unwilling to do a job. Abd already apologized for this happening. If you don't like that the community apologized over the abuse, perhaps you shouldn't commit such in the future? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Ottava, since you say you've been "watching" these new users for several days and not welcoming them, the delay is very much your responsibility. You deliberately chose not to in order to make your point, and then finally welcomed them: but you added a snarky comment when you welcomed them (again, in order to make your point).
 * I cleared the edit comments in part because it seemed a sensible thing to do before shortening the block (removing the issue in contention to hopefully assuage adambro's concerns). However, since you seem to hold that this was perfectly fine to do (and perhaps something you'll continue to do), the block is serving to prevent further problems. The ball is in your court. --SB_Johnny talk 23:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't helping because you poisoned the atmosphere with your abusive behavior. The sensible thing to do is for you to leave this community and don't come back. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So it's not that you really care whether or not people are welcomed? Is making your point is a higher priority? --SB_Johnny talk 00:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One could say the same about your use of ops or your self-serving edits to the Wikiversity:Canvassing proposal that clearly lacks consensus and was quickly reverted. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So my edits are self-serving? It's not that the original draft was "reverted", just expanded and fleshed out. That's how collaborative writing works. --SB_Johnny talk 00:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your language was directly reversed multiple times. That isn't "collaboration", that is having your work removed for not being beneficial. Otherwise, vandals "collaborate" even when their actions are undone. Collaboration means to work together with people, something you haven't done as you stopped working on anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm rather happy with the direction it's going in, so I'm afraid I just don't see the problem. --SB_Johnny talk 00:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the ignoring of your proposed changes to. I guess we are in agreement that the community overriding you was a sensible decision. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So much for having a rational discussion. --SB_Johnny talk 00:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly, but about 12 hours ago. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ottava Rima/archives/2010/dec