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)