User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 2

Lost a template

When I was looking for map templates, I came to one that had an image: A portrait with a lot of gentlemen where one can point a person with mouse and mouseclick moves to the wikipage of that person. Now i cannot find that page again.RicHard-59 14:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Found it:<imagemap> Image:PolierMartinWombwellZoffany.jpg|thumb|200px|Colonel Antoine Polier rect 269 140 344 305 [[Claude Martin]] rect 124 147 181 298 [[Antoine Polier|Antoine-Louis Polier]] desc none </imagemap> RicHard-59 03:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for your msg before 2 months.I am hard for living in China ,I am a richer in spirit,but be a poor in living.So I am very sorry to so later reply your line.I hope I can have more time to wikipedia in future.--Loadpage 11:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Ottava, thank you very much for the congratulation. It is a new adventure for me, and I cannot fulfill it with the support of my member trustees and with the community. Let's keep our mission and our vision in the mind and move forward.--Wing 02:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two#Ottava_Rima TheDJ 20:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing Comment

Hey, sorry if you were bothered by editing the comment. I was doing it to make sure your argument wasn't distracted by a simple spelling error. It certainly wasn't a back-handed insult. Though policy is clear that editing others' comments is touchy and not advisable, particularly during contentious issues, it is also nominally permitted for small typos. I don't think I'll heed your broad warning, but I'll leave your comments alone if you prefer. Thanks, Ocaasi 02:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

...This is the Wikipedia policy I had in mind. (W:TALKO)

It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not delete the comments of other editors without their permission.

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user or someone acting at their explicit request. Do not edit apparent mistaken homophone contractions in comments of others. One may only ask the poster what they meant to say.

Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

So, while the policy makes it clear that it can be objectionable, I didn't think you would mind, since the discussion had been civil, and perhaps because you would appreciate the clearer grammar. Though I don't think you are that off-base in your response, approaching even a policy misstep as such in the talkpage message you left might take into consideration that there wasn't anything against good faith involved. thanks, Ocaasi 03:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ocassi, your actions like the above and attempt to rationalize it are part of why I have no confidence in your understanding of WMF policy or how things should operate here. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You think my views are disposable because I fixed your typos and then told you why I thought you would think it wasn't done in bad faith... I'm not sure I see that logic, except to say that you have a view of how things should operate and it seems that anyone who disagrees with it for any reason is inherently: inexperienced, a fringe POV promoter, a pedophile-supporter, a policy ignoramus, or just generally wrong by default. Your level of explanation or willingness to discuss issues is not at the same level of your conviction, which makes your arguments difficult to engage with. You are probably turning off more people to your perspective, which is not ideal, since the emphasis on creating a Wikipedia which is accessible to many is indeed a goal of most supporters, even those who are highly skeptical of compromising on the encyclopedia's inclusion of controversial content. Ocaasi 10:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Your long term editing while logged out verifies what I said about your editing of other's statements - you have no understanding of our standards. This is seriously problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

en:WP:TALKO, forgot the namespace, Ottava. :)

Ocaasi: not to insert myself into your conversation, but editing the comments of others is a "minefield" situation, unfortunately: It's not something that's obvious to the average passer-by, but will engender inflamed response from those whose edits you edit. Best to simply leave the comments of others alone, including any factual, spelling, or grammar mistakes. If a factual mistake needs to be corrected, please do so with a new comment to that point.

Both of you have an absolutely wonderful day, hey? Kylu 16:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Kylu. I'm not quite the average passer-by, I really just thought that Ottava wouldn't mind since it was an obvious typo and we were having a more substantial discussion.

Ottava, editing while logged out is innocuous. I link all of my i.p. talk pages to my main account, sign accordingly, and speak with the same voice regardless. I think that looking to condemn others based on technicalities is the mark of a stifled bureaucracy not necessarily high standards. Anyway, this project is built on the contributions of anonymous editors, and both for convenience and also to keep an eye on what the world looks like for someone without an account, I don't always log in. The wonderful thing about arguments based on good reasons is that they don't require knowing all of the insider secrets or mores. Anyway, how about not impugning others credibility and getting back to the actual discussion. Ocaasi 16:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ocassi, we have set standards and conventions. My point is that how can you speak about what Wikimedia standards should be when your basic actions go against long set interaction standards? The people who push for a lack of standards for images are all exhibiting a long term pattern of not following our norms. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Our norms". No one else seemed to have a problem with it. Other long-term editors have reassured me that it is no problem at all. Wikipedia policy is clear that using alternate accounts with full disclosure in a non sock/meat way is fine. You're prosecuting again, using superficialities to dismiss views and their proponents that you don't care for. It doesn't stand up and makes your arguments look weaker. It's a tautology that anyone who disagrees with you is a fringe-pov pusher. This doesn't engage any facts, policies, reasons, anecdotes, theories... You've said almost nothing concrete except: what about the 4 million people! and this is how we do things here! Well, that's not sufficient. Discourse requires more explanation and more nuanced ways of dealing with opposing views. The entire notion of consensus apparently eludes your conception of standards, because all you do when encountering opposing views is reject them. I'd rather disregard login-decorum and seek consensus then dot all of the i's and throw out anyone else who gets in the way of my pov. Holding different standards does not mean holding no standards, and having some standards--which you certainly do--does not mean having all standards. Ocaasi 11:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Kylu, a Steward, told you that it isn't proper. You then said no one else has a problem with it. How can you make such claims over and over when the reality completely contradicts what you claim? Are you here just to disrupt? Because your statements above like that are disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Charm and civility

Dear Ottava, you are currently the most aggressive voice in the controversial content discussions, which have otherwise remained rather civil. If you could find it in you to tone down the accusations in your writing, and to be more charitable in your assumptions about others, many people would be grateful for it, and we might more easily move towards a reflective consensus. –SJ · talk | translate 12:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Civility is more than just phrasing. It includes purpose and attitude. A recent en.wiki ArbCom statement said one of the greatest threats was "civil" POV pushing. POV pushing is deceptive, which is incivil. There is no consensus when there are POV pushers manipulating others. Craigslist and Yahoo suffered greatly when they failed to ensure that illegal activities did not take place on their sites. As connected to academia, we cannot allow or troublemakers to push extreme agendas in order to justify illegal activities. It is against US law for pornography that didn't have the consent the owner to exist. Those arguing against any such system said that pedophiles have the right to use our services and other outright unethical things on IRC and here. Such actions cannot be tolerated, and pointing out their histories is not "aggressive". Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Behavior on-wiki

Guillom inappropriately used delrev. Del rev is only to be used when personal information is provided or the rest. I stated only that I had logs verifying that FT2 is a POV warrior who holds fringe views and made it clear that his purpose here is to push fringe issues for the fun of arguing. He also edit warred by putting forth something that was clearly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC

I have opened an RFC on the conduct you have shown recently.

Hopefully this will get you a wide range of views from other users, and more clarity on expectations and standards, as several people have tried to suggest already. I hope at best that the feedback will help before these kinds of things repeat.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding diff: Meta has a unique policy regarding checkuser and oversight in that it may be performed locally by stewards even in non-emergency situations, though preference is given to those who hold the right locally. Similarly, they may act as administrator or bureaucrat for non-emergency actions. For instance, if an editor creates a page which does not follow the inclusion policy here and nobody else has performed the action, stewards are allowed (and encouraged) to delete the page and notify the editor of the policy. Kylu 14:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"Where a request for Oversight or CheckUser is made, those holding the relevant permission locally should fulfil the request. However, to ensure that requests do not stagnate due to quibbles regarding jurisdiction, stewards may fulfil requests where required."

I don't think it was required. I provided no personal information. There was no need to "rush" and DerHexer was still in (and just leaving as I came to IRC to complain). My statement was also about items that he has stated in public, which makes them even less oversightable. It isn't a little odd that one of the major problems with FT2 was that he was removed for inappropriately using OS in addition to other abuses of Arbitratorship then requested such. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Requirement in such cases would be determined between the person performing the action and the local user they discussed the matter with later, not the person performing the edit they deem oversightable. In absence of a local oversight reversing the edit, it seems that the local oversights disagree with your assessment. You would, of course, have to ask them. Kylu 14:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Local users don't get the say. Oversight is a special privilege used in special circumstances that are clearly defined. FT2 was removed for making a minor OS. That shows how serious OS is and how it cannot just be used lightly. Mard says that I had two options: appeal through a process or save it for the Steward review. Guillom is a really bad steward with a history of abuse, so I will save it to help ensure he is removed this time around. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

en-wv note

While I'm sure it wasn't your intention, I think one of the notes you left in the discussion could confuse readers into thinking that I was one of the "many Stewards" you mention (see first comment in the text of that diff) who state they have issues with Laaknor's history regarding you, whereas my note about it was more limited to my recusal in cases in which you are involved, instead. I also suggested bringing up a discussion on the matter, but didn't intend for that to mean in the SRP section in question. I should've been more precise if I left that part out, sorry.

My opinions of other stewards are limited to:

• Pathoschild is hard working, no matter how much he claims to be lazy, and should end up a paid developer of some sort, I think.
• I wish Spacebirdy were still a steward. She was much better at it than I.

If you think that in the context that it was posted my position was less than clear, please let concerned parties Hope that clarifies. Kylu 19:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I wish Spacebirdy was still a user too. By the way, I already stated you were recused so your opinion didn't matter. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Pfft, like it ever does. Kylu 02:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. We all know that if -you- were in the personal appeal that the Foundation would get hundreds of millions of dollars. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Which is more important: porn or world visibility?

Hello Ottava,

personally I think that the board should not be the judge when there is disputes inside of the community. So this is my personal view, expressed as a normal community member.

First of all, as far as I know the Commons community had agreed that images, pure porn without any educational value, should be deleted. So, it is not the question what is more important, porn or world visibility. That question is quite clear to answer: Porn without educational value has no place on our projects.

That is also derived from the first part our mission: The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.

What you refer to is content that is controvertial. For some of us it has educational value, for others it has no.

Our mission statement has mentioned here a few critical words: "empower and engage people around the world", "collect and develop educational content" and "disseminate it effectively and globally". I think this is the very principle for all our projects.

Visibility in the world is not important, empower and engage people around the world and dessiminate the knowledge globally are important. Visility in the world is only a tool, to achieve our mission more effectively. Porn is not our topic, educational content is our topic. What is educational and how we treat them should be discussed and worked out inside of the community, and that community clearly includes the non-western cultures.

This is my personal opinion, one mind from a lot.

Greetings --Wing 11:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Steward electrions

Are you sure you signed in the right section or used the correct template? Something seems mixed up to me... Wojciech Pędzich Talk 20:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You should wait to see if someone makes a correction before poking them about it. :P I beat you by a few seconds. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed... just wanted to make sure, don't take it personally :) Wojciech Pędzich Talk 20:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

There will be a lot of problems - as the jumping between sections, edit conflicts, etc, will cause all sorts of errors. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your messange :). Greetings, Bacus15 11:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack

Could you please provide any proof for those words: You have abused your power quite a bit and your stance on items is poisonous. --WizardOfOz ^talk 20:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks are calling someone stupid, ugly, etc. Those statements are about his actions. You have a track record of attacking those who oppose and your Steward election is failing because of it. A normal person would learn from that and stop committing the same problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked per infinite. Thanks for your response. --WizardOfOz ^talk 21:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

From What is considered to be a personal attack? you find this quote Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. You asserted that I abused my tools and provided no evidence that I did so. That is a serious allegation. -Djsasso 23:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Djsasso, this is not en:Wikipedia. If you run for such an important position, you must be able to accept some heat. I haven't seen you ask the supporters for evidence! Guido den Broeder 00:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A personal attack doesn't stop being a personal attack just because this is meta. A personal attack is a personal attack. There is a difference between saying I am unfit for the position or some such and outright suggesting that I have abused my tools. As I told him, I would have had no problem with it had he simply said I was unfit or as he says had an attitude problem. But accusing me of abusing tools without proof is past the line of acceptable behavior. -Djsasso 00:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Saying someone isn't trust worthy isn't a personal attack. You bully and intimidate people by using your status, just like you did at Simple and here. That isn't appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Djsasso: but that's not what happened, is it? In his vote, he did not accuse you of any abuse of power, and you called it a personal attack nonetheless. You were the one who - repeatedly - started talking about abuse, not Ottava. Guido den Broeder 01:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That is what happened. There is even a quote above of him saying it. From what I understand, though I do not know since I haven't talked to the admin who did it, the quote above is the reason for the block. And its quite clear in that comment that he did say it. -Djsasso 01:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You used your status as an administrator to bully me off of Simple without any real justification. That is abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I did no such thing, we had one disagreement and it was over in a matter of hours. If I had kept at you for days and days maybe you might have a case. People are allowed to disagree with you believe it or not. I never once in that discussion mentioned I was an admin, nor did I threaten to use my tools against you. So I neither bullied you...or used my status against you. -Djsasso 01:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

you most certainly did and most people in the Simple IRC room know it!!! You are a bully who made it so poisonous that it was not worth even looking at the project as long as you were around. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't take much to see that I left after your actions on Simple and in IRC even though i had community support. It was because of how nasty you were and how you went after me without any legitimate reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request granted This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request. Request reason: Revenge block by someone who ignores that there already was plenty of evidence and discussion provided. WizardOfOz has a long history of making such blocks, including GuidodB. Those like PeterSymonds told WizardOfOz not to make this block. Unblock reason: Unblocked by WizardOfOz. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC) This template should be archived normally. English | español | français | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | 中文 | edit

block log gblock log blocklist stalktoy guc unblock gunblock contribs: +/-

Suggestion

May I humbly suggest that the block may be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator at the end of this month, so that the personal controversy and electoral matters are already passed by and the block can be lifted without further flames. Thank you. --M/ 22:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That is utterly ridiculous and has nothing to do with standards or policy here. Nothing I said could be construed as a personal attack, and those like DerHexer, PeterSymonds, etc, have already made that very clear. Your own suggestion makes it obvious that you would happily silence a user who has over 2100 edits here and was involved in multiple elections, including performing most of the archival work for the last one. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, but I suggested that you would lower your expressions here. Hence, since your desire to set matters, I support a six months block that seems enough to remember to anybody on this wiki that collaboration should always come before than personal satisfaction.

--M/ 22:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Six months? What ridiculous. Meta does not hand out blocks. We don't have a blocking policy for that reason. You are acting exactly opposite of what Meta is intended for. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Will you ever try to think about your escalation on this wiki? I think you have misused several service pages and that the conflict that have risen could have easily avoided. Of course I was will to re-examine your block, but your answers don't show any will from your part to lower terms and slightly rethink your positions. --M/ 23:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My escalation? I've been a member in good standing here for 2 years. I did the archival work last election. WizardOfOz abusively blocked Guido for 3 months. When questioned, he called me a troll. Herby agreed with my assessment. Shortly after Guido was unblocked, WizardOfOz blocks me for the same false claims of "personal attacks", which has nothing to do with the definition and with a block time that is unacceptable at Meta. DerHexer's response to this was shock that WizardOfOZ thought it was okay. -That- is the standard response because such behavior by WizardOfOz is never acceptable and not how things work here. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It is clear to a lot of people that this was an abusive revenge block by a user who a lot of people feel has a history of such abusive behavior, which is why he is failing his election. Circling the wagons around him when there is a lot of opposition to his block of me as there was to Guido does this community no favor. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My proposal is to wait and keep you thinking to this fact: you asked some clarification to me once, and the matter was settled. If with more than one other admin there are recurring problems, is it possible that your approach is sometimes a little bit unappropriate? --M/ 23:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I wont repeat the nasty things others have said about your comments above, but many on IRC have seen them and they aren't great. The problem is obvious and it isn't me. WizardOfOz has made these bad blocks over a long period of time. Blaming the victim isn't acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you'll have to find another sysop for you to talk, you're not interested in being unblocked ad the end of february. --M/ 23:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you, as a steward, think any block on Meta except for vandalism is acceptable, as Meta has always been opposed to blocking so people can use Meta as a last place to voice concerns and problems. Why would you go against years of tradition like that? Over something that is completely false and so iffy like this? With a user who hasn't been blocked here and has over 2 years worth of hard work here? And to say a month from nothing is acceptable? Why do you think you've angered a lot of people? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing here to support you? Beautiful!!! --M/ 23:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It is up on Wikipedia Review. People need to see your inability to understand how blocks are to be used. Such attitudes weren't accepted before and for some reason that changed. If bad stewards who support such abuses need to be removed before Meta returns to its previous state then so be it. You can be sure that I put it all over the Steward and other channels too. If you want to push a really bad block without justification, you have no right to be here. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I support your block, adding "canvassing" to reasons. --M/ 23:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing isn't a reason to block. I have every right to complain about a bad block, and people have every right to know you support such ridiculousness. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Support immediate unblock. Administrator on the rampage, enough said. And M7 should know better. Guido den Broeder 23:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ottava has used recently used canvassing to seriously affect on-wiki process. Evidence upon request. However, as to the matter here, canvassing is largely irrelevant. Ottava has a habit of attacking any admin, anywhere, who interferes with his plans, and occasionally one will use tools anyway, but it's a standard understanding that alleged bias on the part of a blocking admin is not a proper reason for unblock, ever. The reason for unblock would be lack of hazard to the wiki. Therefore, any administrator considering unblock should review Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima, especially with regard to recent events. Ottava has a faction of supporters who will intervene when needed to support his causes and defend him, but the evidence should be considered. --Abd 01:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't life on Meta just a joy. I wonder if there is a button for hiving off en wv completely...

Anyway - in response to M7 and not other postings here I think the proposal is entirely sensible. Ottava would quickly inform me that I am not uninvolved which makes him right for once. I have seriously considered blocking him a time or two recent. He really does not understand collaborative editing and the idea that anyone other than him might be right about anything is an alien concept. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Meta has -never- been a place for such blocks. As I said, DerHexer and PeterSymonds already expressed major dissatisfaction with it. We don't have a blocking policy here for a reason, and WizardOfOz's block is clearly revenge and M7 has already been pointed out to be a long time associate of DJSasso. And Herby, your statements about me are unfounded - I have far more edits here than most people and helped organize last election. My block log was pristine for a reason. Your statements are attacks that don't match up with reality. Claiming I don't understand collaborative editing is laughable as I have worked with over 70 people for DYK, GA, and FAs, and have had my work handled even by a Board Member. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You certainly have welcomed a lot of people here I grant you. Given the work on en wp it is sad that you are blocked on there.

As to M7 I have no idea who he knows or does not know. However he was working here before I arrived and I have learnt much from him (and trust him fully). In my experience there seems to be controversy around you whenever I come across you which is indicative of an inability to collaboratively edit in my experience. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't just welcomed people - I performed a lot of archive work, translation work, and other matters. And look at M7's steward page to see people from Simple commenting about work at Simple. Simple is a small community and I left because of DJSasso's treatment of me in public and in IRC that was absolutely awful. He was one of the few people who have ever made me cry, and I was put in a state because I did -nothing- wrong. I worked with people, said nothing to anyone except to help them, and bent over backwards to obey all rules. He wanted to ban me. Most of the community supported me but because it was so small I couldn't bear to be near him. I was blocked because my pointing out this trauma is deemed a "personal attack" in opposition to what the word means. It compounds his original abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Herby, the only requirement for confirmation is "To comment, please log in with an account that has edits (on any wiki) before February 1st 2011". You and others have disqualified comments that are allowed based on a bot that is for voting and not for confirmation. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Will you please source in any way my "association" with any other sysop (on any Wiki)? BTW, I did a fast research and it appears that I've never supported the user you're stating that is associated with me. This is the only election in which I casted a vote, that was an oppose. I'm really afraid that you're continuing to presume bad faith in my and other fellows' wiki activities. --M/ 18:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, so you verified that you use Simple Wiki a lot, and since it is a small community impossible for you to not know him, yet you say that because you didn't vote for him before you can't possibly have some relationship? That is rather ridiculous. No one would ever think a block from 0 block to indefinite would be acceptable, let alone 1 month for a starter block of a user who has been here without a block for 3 years and has more edits than most people in these discussions. Yet there you were. It doesn't take a genius to see that. And guess what? I'm not the one who first thought it was true. By the way, DJSasso uses IRC and is there quite frequently. It is a very tiny community where the admin constantly speak. To say you don't have a background with another there isn't being completely honest. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, again you'vre falsely accused me of "relationship" with someone else. Please reflect, this is not a good way to act. Thank you, M7 19:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, most people on IRC think you are friends with him. Your block suggestion for a month was more than horribly unreasonable, your action of redeffing shows poor judgment that only comes from aiding a friend, and your actions are disconnected from what is normal here. I mean, seriously, if you had any sense you would apologize because you would realize how embarrassing you are acting. It is clear that the two of you work together in a tiny group and you accused others of canvassing when there is far more evidence you are here on revenge. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, for the last time. I am rarely on IRC and there I was not yesterday nor for at least two or three months. Simple wiki is not my home wiki and I usually keep an eye on vandalism there. So your rumors and slander are only another demonstration that your collaboration within a project is nearly impossible at the moment. Please try in the next months to look at matters from another point of view, at least avoiding attacks towards other people, especially those you don't know anything about. --M/ 19:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No one believes you. You made a really bad block after promoting a really bad block. You made up claims about personal attacks, canvassing and harassment. You have no basis here and made it clear from your proposal for one month to silence me from having a say. It is clear that there is a major problem with your behavior and you can't see that. Your lies and excuses above are startling. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"No one" <> Just you and your close friends. Please do not continue with such unreasonable arguments, that are a major risk on a collaborative project. May I just suggest you to retry with a much smoother approach to be unblocked in the future. Ciao ciao, M/ 22:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no collaboration when you abuse the block button to silence opposition to your friends. And no, -my- friends didn't point out that you two were friends. Two of those people who did were two people I opposed at confirmation. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've been kind of watching this from afar. Never having any personal bad interactions with Ottava I've not wanted to really get into this. I'm not going to comment on the block, as I'm not familiar enough with meta policies. I will however, comment on Ottava's comments to both M7 and DJsasso, as I think some of these have been unfair. Many of the claims Ottava uses are being backed up by things people have said on IRC. IRC is an optional resource, and is not the same as the wiki. Actions there really don't translate onto the wiki in most cases. (ie you can't hold important discussions on IRC about the community and it's wishes.) Ottava, if there are people who are agreeing with you and supporting what you are saying on IRC, it would probably be much more helpful if you could kindly ask them to display their thoughts on an RFC or TP, that way all will be able to read the comments. If we can read what people are actually saying, there is less room for doubt, as we are made certain of people's thoughts. But I'm digressing here. The real reason I'm here is because of Simple WP being dragged into this. I've been on simple wiki for over a year now, and I don't think I have ever seen M7 on IRC, in any channel private or otherwise. DJ is fairly active on IRC, however he is more active in private channels (Ie #wikipedia-simple-admins) and is very rarely in the public #simple-wikipedia. M7 has also not been the most active user on the Wikipedia, as he is very busy elsewhere. Looking at M7's contribs at simplewiki, I see a few edits to Admin noticeboards and simple:Wikipedia:Simple Talk. Nine of his edits to Simple Talk were to revert vandalism, and I think he commented on two discussions there. On AN he has commented in one discussion, and DJ never commented in that discussion. My little research here goes back to March of 2009. This leads me to two conclusions. One, if DJ was harassing you on IRC (which I cannot confirm or deny. Myself being a very active IRC user didn't see this) it was most likely a one time deal not lasting more than an hour. As I said, very rarely is he in the public channel for longer than a few hours. He sits in the private channel where he is able to offer his assistance when needed. I'm sorry for any distress you were caused, but I just don't see it as a life/wiki-life changing event, especially because it didn't happen on the wiki itself. Secondly, from my sample of edits going back almost a year, M7 and DJ have had very little communication on simple wiki's main discussion boards, and have had almost no contact on IRC as I've already stated M7 pretty much never uses that. So, to sum up my word wall, I just really think you need to choose your arguments more carefully Ottava. If you are going to accuse people of things like abusing power or only helping friends, make sure you actually have concrete evidence of this happening, and people willing to come on record (on wiki) and support these arguments. Thanks for reading.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

  I'd like to add that the same should then go for users accusing Ottava Rima of canvassing for support. I have been logged in often enough and have not seen anything of the sort on IRC. Guido den Broeder 01:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

And I would agree. My comments regarding the use of IRC in debate can really be used generally for everybody. The more discussion we can keep on wiki the better, to be honest.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Gordon, is it just coincidence that the only Steward who regularly uses Simple is the one who backs up a really bad block and also says I should be blocked until after the election to keep me from being heard? And people don't want to comment publicly because of the election - if they are willing to bad block me for opposing, they are more than willing to try and ruin someone who is just speaking up for what is right. And none of it matters as many have pointed out that M7's actions are highly improper. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

M7 is nowhere near the steward who most actively edits SimpleWiki, User:Mercy would hold that honor (and no, I don't see any major discussion between him and DJ either.) As I stated, I'm really not interested in M7's block, not because I don't care that you are blocked, but because I am almost 100% clueless when it comes to meta's blocking policy. I could only imagine that, if one of the admins felt that this block was fully 100% wrong it would be undone already. That is of course just speculation, but I do trust our admins and stewards to do the correct thing. I honestly don't think anybody is trying to ruin you. That is completely against the basic principles on which the foundation runs, and if any user has a history of ruining users I can only hope that they would be long gone. Setting out to ruin users is just plain destructive, and I don't think anybody here has those intentions.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Meta is notoriously slow in handling unblock requests. It's probably a good idea though to keep things simple and if at all possible avoid dragging other issues into the discussion, even when they are related. Guido den Broeder 02:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Curious as to what I'm dragging in. All I've attempted to do is address the accusations Ottava and others have made as objectively as possible. If Bringing Mercy in is what you are referring too, that is just a direct response to Ottava's claim that M7 is the only active Steward who edits simple.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That's OK, I meant to address everyone, not you in particular. Cheers, Guido den Broeder 02:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Mercy deals with global vandalism. I haven't seen M7 do that. M7 is involved in voting on Simple, suggesting quite more depth than you gave credit. "I am almost 100% clueless when it comes to meta's blocking policy" We don't have a blocking policy because people aren't supposed to be blocked for a very good reason - Meta is the place that people should be able to voice concerns. The actions above are in direct defiance of that tradition. By the way, if no one is "trying to ruin me", why would a guy who I spent 3 weeks trying to show how his block of Guido was horribly bad only to be called troll over and over even when Herby agreed with my assessment? You can see for yourself. This was a clear revenge block and M7's statements above show a lack of understanding how problematic such things are. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Mercy me. Why don't the wise counselors of Meta establish a functional conflict resolution process rather than relying on an anachronistic practice of banishment and ostracism that went out of style some 3760 years ago? This is the 21st Century folks. Tribal practices are a tad out of date, are they not? —Caprice 05:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think maybe the drafting of some sort of policy could be helpful in the future. Ottava, I really don't have anything more to add. M7 has only participated in 3 discussion board discussions and a few RFXs in the past year, one of them where he opposed DJ. Once again, about the block, I can only assume the very trusted meta admins would have already taken some sort of action if they felt the block was completely and utterly against what meta stands for. I'm going to try to not respond here again, I think I have said all that I want to say. I wish you the best of luck.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 12:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to say that I think the posting above by Gordonrox24 is a sensible summary of the situation. M7 seems completely unconnected with Djsasso (if anything the reverse). Equally if any Meta admin who is active (there are few of them) had something to say about this they would have done so. Ottava has been in "discussion" with so many people that there will be few who would consider themselves uninvolved.

For what it's worth "indef" is probably too long but some cooling off for a reasonable period seems entirely sensible. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see other users that would need that more, but no.

What we want is a reduction of the unrest. Blocks on Meta will not accomplish that. Instead, I suggest closure of all reviews involving Ottava Rima (on either side of the equation) and a temporary ban for everyone on opening new ones. That would be a tremendous help to get Wikiversity moving forward. What do you think? Guido den Broeder 13:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Blocks and bans are demonstrably the single greatest cause of unrest. This is not a new observation. This was such a well known observation some 3760 years ago, that it formed the impetus of the very first civil law ever carved into stone tablets. What's needed is a peaceable conflict resolution process rather than an archaic tribal practice that is ineffective at best and counter-productive at worst. —Caprice 14:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thoughtful postings - both the above so thanks for that. For someone with the longest block logs generally where I work I really dislike blocking real users - I generally deal with the drive by idiots.

We certainly could do with a "reduction of unrest". My experience of conflict resolution on wiki is that it sucks generally. Meta only tends to wake up about once a year too so few folk actually work on here all that much (despite the number of people who seem to be admins).

For now one of my favourite saying "it is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all reasonably doubt" - I'm going to think. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• "I can only assume the very trusted meta admins would have already taken some sort of action if they felt the block was completely and utterly against what meta stands for" Those like PeterSymonds made it clear to WizardOfOz that his block was awful and irresponsible, and have been trying to get WizardOfOz to remove it himself. Not being unblocked does not mean the block was right. Meta doesn't block people and isn't supposed to act this way, which a few new people don't understand. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• And Herby, blocks are not for "cooling off". Anger is not blockable. Being upset or passionate is not blockable. Your own suggestion above is why I don't trust you with the ops. Only clear vandalism and the such warrants blocks. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You have such a talent for endearing yourself to people. Consider me out of this. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You mentioned Cool Down Blocks which are always a no no, and I point that out and you act that way? Did I ask you to be part of it? I didn't. I pointed out Guido's outrageous block and you sat on it for weeks without doing anything. How is that responsible? Wizard kept calling me a troll for what everyone else clearly saw. It is obvious that Wizard's actions are loathed by the community and he is failing his Steward election for it. People need to grow a spine and overturn these bad blocks and finally remove him. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Greetings

It's much easier and faster for me to communicate via wiki. I'm moving away from private communication except where absolutely necessary. Could you initiate the discussion here on Meta? –SJ talk | translate   21:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really, as it doesn't have much to do with the Wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Idea

I think you have the wrong idea. The proposal would not create a new wiki, just rename the existing one per previous creation of other dialect wiki(s). The dialects of the language are considered distinct enough to be given ISO codes as they are mutually unintelligible with different writing styles and etc. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 22:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

ISO code is meaningless. Why do people think otherwise? ISO is a company that copyrights acronyms, abbreviations and phrases and then sells them as "standards" to other companies, even though these should not be something that can be copyrighted. They make millions off of getting there first and they are not linguists or anything with an academic connection to language. Cockney has an ISO code but it is merely rhyming and other things. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice

block log ipblocklist crossblock luxo's unblock remove gblock contribs: +/- You have been blocked from editing Meta for 3 days due to intimidating behaviour / harassment. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, and privacy violations are considered vandalism, and will not be tolerated. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. If you believe the block was placed in error, you may place an unblock request on your talk page using {{unblock|reason}}. Béria Lima msg 20:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request declined This blocked user has had their unblock request reviewed by one or more administrators, who has/have reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Request reason: The user was trying to say that providing children access to pornography was completely appropriate and that prohibiting them access to pornographic material was wrong. The user then went on to say things like "But apparently you are too stupid or ignorant to understand this" and "Frankly, I believe you are the exact reason why children get abused in the world: ignorant idiotic puritans that never, ever would open their minds for anything that doesn't fit their own view of the world." Study after study have proven that pornography is the first step of grooming a child, and this user is trying to justify that giving pornography to a child is legally and morally acceptable, which it is not in any country, including Germany. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Decline reason: Per consensus on WM:RFH this block is now indefinite. I won't bother repeating the discussion there, but given your long history, you know the things you said were not appropriate, and a en:WP:NOTTHEM defence is not going to fly. Courcelles 20:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC) বাংলা | English | español | français | magyar | italiano | 한국어 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | українська | 中文 | edit

block log gblock log blocklist stalktoy guc unblock gunblock contribs: +/-

• Comment - Pending discussion on WM:RFH. -Barras 20:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Charm and civility, take 2

Dear Ottava, you are once more the most aggressive voice in the controversial content discussions, which are otherwise rather civil. This behavior is harmful to constructive discussion. Please tone down the accusations in your writing, and be more charitable in your assumptions about others. –SJ talk | translate   20:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise civil? The guy I responded to said: "But apparently you are too stupid or ignorant to understand this." and "Frankly, I believe you are the exact reason why children get abused in the world: ignorant idiotic puritans that never, ever would open their minds for anything that doesn't fit their own view of the world. " Where have I said anything like that? Look at how many times the word "stupid" comes up and it is said by dozens of IPs. Sj, if you are going to try and make a point at least make one grounded in what is said. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

An apology

I am sorry if I crossed the line. The protection of children is a very serious issue to me it is really troubling to see someone not only say that it was good to give children access to porn but that refusing to do so would cause them harm, especially when that person is constantly calling others stupid. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ottava, the best hope for your eventual recovery from this situation would be to start listening. If you say that you were right, people will hear that as denial. I'm sorry that you are being subjected to a flood of harassment, I'll do what I can about it. I'm hoping that you'll be able to take the time to reflect, and to understand what your friends, like Sj, have been trying to tell you. It's about a state of mind, about being "right." If I believe that I'm right, an easy corollary is that others are wrong, and when my belief in my rightness is strong, I start to become unable to hear what they are actually saying. I imagine what I think they mean, and tell them how wrong they are, when, often, it's not at all what they are saying.

• I've been confused about this, myself, for years. I thought that to take a stand, as you were taking against child porn, I had to be right, and that my job was, then, to convince others who seemed to be taking a different stand that they were wrong. Got me in a lot of trouble, Ottava. Rather, a more open position is that I take a stand because, being informed, I *choose* it, and, in fact, I want everyone to do this, and if our stands seem to differ, then we have something to discuss, and it's not about convincing them that they are wrong. It is about discovering where and how we can agree. Part of my problem was that I expected people to reject me, so I heard what they said as being rejecting me, or what was right, and I had it all confused.

• There is a much better way. Take your time, and see if you can review what happened and see it from the point of view of the others. I'm not saying that you were wrong, that would just be the flip side of "right." I'm just asking you if you can find a way to understand what happened, as being normal human response to someone who strongly believes that he's "right." I'm teasing that out from taking a stand for something. Taking a stand is admirable, commendable. It's when I become attached to it, when my stand for something becomes a stand against them, that I get into hot water. Good luck. --Abd 04:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not in the crossing, but in the location of the line. The fact that some users hid behind anonimity in that discussion is quite telling. Guido den Broeder 09:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a note

An IP user made a claim here. I would respond by pointing out that he said here that "Parents who don't let their children explorer human sexuality in a safe way - like here on WP - are the ones that harm their children."

To me, this says that Wikipedia should be used by children to "explore their sexuality". I cannot, for any reason, see a legitimate reason as to why an adult would want to be on a project with children who are "exploring their sexuality".

Wikipedia's page on child grooming states: "They may show pornography—videos or pictures—to the child, hoping to make it easy for the child to accept such acts, thus normalizing the behavior. They may simply talk about sexual topics. These are just some of the methods a child groomer might use to gain a child's trust and affection in order to allow them to do what they want."

At the very least, the IP, who called everyone else is "too stupid or ignorant to understand this" (note, he wasn't even responding to me at the time with this insult) is pushing a view that is potentially very harmful towards children because of the grooming aspect, which is the reason why no country, not even "censorship free Germany", has the providing of the material to children as acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Misrepresentation

Sj claims I misrepresented him when he is the one doing the misrepresentation.

Any time I have discussed his actions and comments, I have shown people what he said and allowed them to decide for themselves. Sj made it clear that he felt that the IP was practicing a legitimate form of "debate" when the IP was saying: "Parents who don't let their children explorer human sexuality in a safe way - like here on WP - are the ones that harm their children."

That really, really clearly shows that the IP feels that Wikipedia should be used as part of the sexualization of children and any parent that refuses or says otherwise is harming children. Many admin and those I have discussed with have stated that the IP is obviously trolling when it is promoting an activity that is illegal.

Sj then says: "is this simply a desire for a strong bright-line no-pornography policy for Commons based on a particular definition? for something related to the recent referendum? But he seems to be increasing his efforts to make this a flashpoint within the community. "

It is a simple desire to uphold what Sue Gardner said was "commonsense", that pedophilia advocacy should not be tolerated in any form or accepted. Saying that children should be sexualized on Wikipedia is exactly within the definition of Child grooming. The user did not say "I believe my children would benefit from having access to hard core pornographic images on Wikipedia". He stated that all children would be harmed if they didn't have access. The user should have been immediately banned in following what Sue Gardner stated was commonsense.

Wikipedia is not a place to advocate against laws, especially when every country agrees that giving pornography to children is unacceptable. My Congressman and others were deeply offended that the user was allowed to use the WMF to push his views in direct contradiction to the law, offended that children can access hard core pornography in violation of the law, and offended that Board Members are witnessing both while doing nothing to prevent it.

These images clearly fit the legal definition of hard core pornography in the US, Germany, and many other countries, and yet are still accessible to children in those countries: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc.

These aren't "gray areas". They don't "help children". What they do is condition them to think that sexual activity at their age is appropriate, and in a community that has children under the age of 14 that is really inappropriate. To claim that those who don't want children to "explore their sexualities" by prohibiting them from seeing these images are "harming" the children is to make a political view that goes against every countries' laws on the matter. To have people who think that giving children pornography will "help them" interact with these children editors is dangerous. The personal already stated that they believe not only that giving pornography to children wont hurt, but not giving them pornography will. It is against WMF policy for users to act in this way, and a person openly declaring that they think that there is no problem shows clear acceptable of a blatantly banned practice.

This is no different from a person who says "well, I think it is alright for us to post up editors social security numbers and to steal their credit card information". It is stating a belief that it is positive to break a law in every country that was established for the purpose of protecting children editors. To say that the person is practicing legitimate "debate" while clearly advocating for something illegal is irresponsible. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)