User talk:Ottava Rima/archives/2011/jan

warning, again
We've already gone over this, but I'll re-warn you rather than just giving you the block. Belittling people on behalf of "the community" is not acceptable behavior, and I will block you in a New Yor minute if you do it again. Even if you do it to me, so be careful how you respond to this warning. --SB_Johnny talk 00:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Belittling how? By saying that the community doesn't want him to have ops? That was rather clear in the discussion. If anything, the Recusal policy makes it clear that you have no right to even warn me over this, as you are heavily involved in the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clear that you don't want him to have ops, but not so clear that "the community" doesn't want him to have ops. I'm not sure he should have them if it were up to me, but it's not.
 * And, uh, recusal policy? You mean the one Abd tried to get going but you opposed? Good grief. Again. --SB_Johnny talk 01:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I pointed out problems. Enric pointed out problems. Moulton pointed out problems. Etc. When combined with the overwhelming oppose votes in the first Custodianship attempt by Abd on the very same matters, it shows that you thinking Abd should be a Custodian is a minority position. This is something you fail to recognize and, as a Crat, an abuse of authority. You serve the community, not yourself. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And no, I mean the Custodian page. You know, the policy that was changed to say this, making it policy. See, you tried to shut down a legitimate discussion on change the page but did nothing to stop an actual dramatic addition added to the page without consensus to adopt it to the already existing policy. It is just a pattern of major double standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even Jtneill admits the community had concerns: "I am concerned, however, by the community concern above." Not by "Ottava's concern above". An objective person would have recognized this and not acted in the way you have, SB Johnny. Your WR nasty attacks verifies that you are not thinking clearly. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ottava, there's a whole big giant Community Review page that really did get a lot of input about you being bossy and abusive, so I feel pretty free to use a tool if necessary to curb that if you won't do it voluntarily.
 * I'm concerned at least as much as Jtniell is (after all, if you recall I was one of the people asking pointed questions on Candidates_for_Custodianship/Abd_2, and I don't feel my concerns were met), but the rules are the rules. If you want to change the rules, you need to work with others and come up with something better that we all feel better about. --SB_Johnny talk 01:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. by "a lot of imput" you mean by mostly canvassed users and closed after 3 days? That is normally called a Kangaroo court. 2. Abusive? Not one instance of me actually abusing an op was provided. And, if there was, the actions were so completely undone that the remedy of desysopping would be uncalled for. 3. The rules are not the rules. No where does it say that community consensus has no input. It says on the Custodianship policy page clearly that adminship is not a right. Community consensus is the greatest rule on Wikiversity. What needs to be done is you permanently removed as you have consistently acted for the worse here and it isn't a coincidence that you have a competing site. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll give you until Friday before I put up your 7 day vote on you keeping your ops or not. You can save yourself the embarrassment of having to meet "clear consensus to support Custodianship", i.e. 60% of the vote, by stepping down now. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I'd get that support, frankly... all I do lately is call balls, strikes, and fouls, after all. --SB_Johnny talk 01:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Over 60%? I can count at least 6 people who would oppose you. That would mean that you would need at least 7, with either Mikeu or Jtneill not being able to vote to ensure a crat to close it. You would need to get 8 friends, which I don't think you have. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, all you do lately is nothing but make controversial admin actions and avoid community consensus. You don't edit or provide any educational content here. But you do make a lot of nasty posts on WR which suggest that you treat this community as a game to play with. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatev. If people really think I'm doing a terrible job, then of course I should go. --SB_Johnny talk 01:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The real question is: why do you think you are doing a good job? You haven't been a real participant in this community for 2 years. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So much for having a rational discussion. --SB_Johnny talk 01:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Outright dismissal suggests you lack an answer. Why is it that, after you out of process desysopped JWSchmidt, you stopped working on educational material and spent 2 years making controversial admin actions? Why is it that during the same time your comments on WR were hostile, inflammatory, or the rest? Why is it that during this time you had your own competing educational wiki while you were contributing to a poisonous atmosphere here? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ottava, I'm not going to resign on your request, even though I openly admit that I weigh more than a duck. I've already answered your questions, including the misleading ones. --SB_Johnny talk 02:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you? I see no mention of JWSchmidt's inappropriate desysopping in any of your edits for today. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There's m:Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima, so it's only fair to have m:Requests for comment/User:SB Johnny.

2 day block
The ad hominem statement here, as well as the previous post, were completely uncalled for and disruptive to the discussion. Please take some time to consider strategies for toning your comments down before hitting the save page button. --SB_Johnny talk 11:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's try to establish some form here, SBJ. Recusal, which I've proposed, as you know, would suggest you not be the one to block unless there is an emergency. If you judge that there is an emergency, and you are involved, and, given how roundly Ottava has attacked you, you should be considered involved ("involvement" does not refer to your personal state of detachment, but to appearance), and you nevertheless block, you should notify Request custodian action promptly and request review by a neutral custodian. Please consider doing this, thanks. --Abd 13:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. --SB_Johnny talk 16:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You forgot that there was no warning, or that ops are not to be used for attacks and harassment, or that a guy who stole ops and uses WR to harass others shouldn't be accepted by this community. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't "steal ops", and I'm not attacking you or harassing you. Trash talking on the Colloquium is incredibly unhelpful, I've warned you about it repeatedly, so please just don't do it any more. When you do that on WR it's just par for the course and you're shouted down, but shouting matches here on WV really aren't appropriate. --SB_Johnny talk 16:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You weren't given ops back from consensus. It isn't rightfully yours. And your "warnings" have no basis in reality. They are bullying tools that you use to try and destroy this community. You wont be happy until every last person who actually does work around here is run off. If you honestly think you have community support you would have your self desysopped and run again. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no ad hominem there unless you want to say having global sysops being elected by consensus is an attack on them. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The ad hominem was towards abd, not the global sysops. --SB_Johnny talk 16:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem by definition means to call the person's character into judgment, an action necessary for determining if someone is fit for adminship. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcoming
When I was blocked over 7 hours after to supposed emergency, which consensus has deemed not "incivility" nor does WV:CIVIL allow for blocks (it instead says to ignore it), a lot of people have gone unwelcomed. Can someone do that? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mercy me! Would you like me to go welcome User:Mercy for you?  —Caprice 16:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Erkan did that already, a long time ago. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Final warning
I would normally not act with respect to you using tools, but I'm declaring an emergency with respect to the current situation with your out-of-process "confirmation hearing" on SBJ. I am therefore warning you that certain actions of yours have been completely unacceptable. You have threatened that two unspecified Wikiversity sysops are ready to block, and that they will block, me and anyone else who "disrupts" the process you started. These threats must stop, you are not qualified to warn about such. I have notified the community of my intention to act with. Be advised that, until I am told by a custodian that I must not act, I will proceed as I see necessary for the protection of Wikiversity, and I am willing to take full responsibility for that.

If there were really two such custodians, agreeing in advance to promote your agenda, based on off-wiki discussions that were not open to the community, we would have a very serious situation, and I must treat this allegation by you as false, until and unless the custodians come forth and explain. Therefore I must act as if you made false statements in an attempt to intimidate Wikiversity users, and that's extremely serious. This is a final warning before indef block. The community or my mentor will tell me if I should stand aside. I highly recommend standing down, immediately, letting the smoke clear. --Abd 17:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We do not allow indef blocks nor do you have the right or authority to do such. You have disrupted multiple processes and have shown a complete disregard to our standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked
As you are continuing to create disruptive process, and per my expressed intentions and conditions stated on the Request custodian action page, I am blocking you, pending review by any other custodian. I do not require that the custodian be neutral, and I do not require discussion prior to unblock, though any custodian or editor is welcome to discuss this with me, here or, better, on my Talk page.

As to unblocking, I only ask that the unblocking custodian take responsibility for ongoing review of the situation, so that this kind of thing doesn't arise and escalate in the future. Any user may, of course, protest this block, here or elsewhere. I am not blocking Talk page or email access, and the length of the block may be long only to establish a default. On Wikipedia, when I was blocked the first time, Iridescent properly wrote, "indef until some new decision is made, not indef as in infinite." I would recommend that any unblocking admin, before or after unblocking, establish behavioral standards for Ottava.

I am involved, a block like this would not ordinarily be legitimate, which is why this is being done with prior consultation with the community, and why I consent to reversal without discussion. Explaining the detailed reasons behind my action is too much for now, but I'm acting because nobody else has, and those most likely to be aware of the situation are also likely to be considered involved. Ottava has been attacking every active bureaucrat. I'm being a lightning rod. --Abd 20:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Unblocked. Abd, you're over the line here. Seriously. --SB_Johnny talk 20:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Enforcing the ban against Moulton
(Reply to this): I see that on 4 July 2010 I wrote, "An honest Custodian should just unblock Moulton" User:Jtneill suggested that I try to use Community Review to discuss Moulton's situation. Around 17 July 2010, I started exploring how to liberate Moulton by way of discussion in the Community Review that you asked me to start (see). As I recall, at that time you were at war with Moulton because he mentioned your name at Wikiversity. "Moulton was given 4 months of due process before Jimbo stepped in" was your contribution to my attempt to discuss the abuse that had been heaped on Moulton. By the way, my blog is an open blog, so feel free to edit the blog pages and add your perspective. --JWSchmidt 16:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "at that time you were at war with Moulton because he mentioned your name at Wikiversity" I was never at war with Moulton. I spent many hours trying to convince people to get Jimbo to overturn his lock and other problems. Remember, I was he one who suggested to break the lock via renaming. I am not a Crat nor was I a Crat, so I could not "unblock" Moulton. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the answer to Ottava's question of the level of conflict. —Barsoom Tork 12:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Good News For You
Your persuasion of Wiki-addiction is working, hence this Mouse shall edit Wikipedia, and Wikiversity again. Oh yeah, started using IRC again. Well hope to work with you soon lad! These days though I have exams, so I'll edit slowly. Will be free soon, don't worry. IDangerMouse 06:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)