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)