User talk:Dinsdale

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello Dinsdale, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon Button sig.png in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Ottava Rima (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikiversity[edit]

Dinsdale, you seem like a user with substantial wiki experience. If this is true, are you willing to connect your persona here with other wiki accounts, at least your main one? Wikiversity is often a refuge for users blocked or banned elsewhere, and we even have several users who are under global lock. All we ask is that users behave here. And even with that, one has to really try hard to get blocked and stay blocked at Wikiversity, one must ignore warnings repeatedly and abuse the trust of the community! I can't think of anyone who has recently been banned. It might happen with one or two users, who have plenty of opportunity to reconsider what they are doing.

It's part of our mission of academic freedom. My opinion is, in fact, that we should require real names here, except for minors, so that people are real-world responsible for what they write, that's the flip side of the academic freedom coin. Minor users could, then, use pseudonyms, satisfying privacy policy, and we'd know who they were.... and they could use real names with parental permission. --Abd 17:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Abd, I have some wiki experience. I am not a regular user. I am an observer and commenter. I will not reveal my personal identity primarily for the reason that there exist more than a small number of, what can only be considered deranged, people who edit on wikipedia/sister projects and diligently keep track of grudges. This spills over into everyday life and I will not have that. I think it would be a great if there were a policy that required all users to have a single account linked to their real name and verified with a credit card. This is not the case, nor will it e'er be. Dinsdale 18:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I understand. I'll point out that in academia, however, the same conditions apply, but we wouldn't imagine a professor teaching under a pseudonym. What I wrote was just a request, and not any kind of demand. The comments I have seen from you were cogent, and I thank you for them. Please consider participating more extensively here at Wikiversity. Topics can generally be addressed deeply here, and the inclusive operating policy, using forking when needed, allows avoiding much of the conflict necessitated on Wikipedia by the flat, single-page-per-topic structure. There are still those, a few, who seek to exclude what they call "fringe," but that generally fails here, people recognize it as conflicting with academic freedom. We have no freedom to misinform, here, but that's handled by attribution and care as to where text is placed, and the context. --Abd 22:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure you do understand. While people with attitudes such as Ottava have free reign here, then no serious work will get done for, in general, no serious persons will spend time in an environment wherein they are subjected to a tirade for the mere appearance of disagreement with "the chief organizer of wikiversity." I'm quite sure that the people who contribute here regularly do not understand that the presence of such a vindictive personality obviates avoidance. Ottava is in many ways similar to Sarah Palin or Jeffrey Merkey. No person with volunteer time to spend will spend it in an arena where one such as that holds sway. Dinsdale 03:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, and Wikiversity seems sensitive to damage of this kind. People just want to create their resources in peace, and when they see these "wars" in centralized process, it completely turns them off. There are solutions, but many established Wikiversitans dislike them, because, if not structured and monitored properly, they can be abused.
Meta works fairly well, absent systemic bias.
I.e., someone like Thekohser, well-known as a serious and cutting critic of the WMF, can get cut down unfairly, because admins "circle the wagons," and some users there can be blocked by admins based on disagreements on other wikis, probably that was behind the rapid early blocking of m:User:Guido den Broeder, but ... just because someone biased blocks you doesn't mean that you didn't deserve to be blocked.... In fact, both these cases showed how the user himself ultimately made it very clear what the problem was, given enough rope. Guido may escape, but not if he keeps it up....
Wikiversity is very loathe to block. My position is that this is part of the problem, that blocks are not bans and should not become them, that involved custodians should still be free to, when they perceive an emergency, block, provided that they immediately call attention to the block and invite neutral review. Otherwise, someone who has become highly disruptive gets a pass, as the active custodians all become "involved."
On Wikipedia, in my last RfAr, I argued for recusal policy (including the emergency bypass that does allow action). It was amazing how many admins openly rejected it. ArbComm paid no attention, bored as usual....
I'm looking for structural solutions. Individuals are not really the problem, but lack of structure, it's a general truth about human society. --Abd 20:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Destroy the Sith We Must[edit]

Q: Who said, "Destroy the Sith, we must." ?

A: Yoda.

Q: Who said, "Destroy the Sith, we must, we must, we must." ?

A: Yoda Yadda Yadda.

Moulton 00:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I will say, Dinsdale, that the aggressive approach to Ottava isn't a great idea here. He's a bit down on his luck, lately, how about laying off? Peter Damian is welcome to give Wikiversity a whirl, and so are you, and allegations of socking, i.e., of having some other account that is banned somewhere, are simply irrelevant here. You will be judged by what you do here, you could be GRAWP and we won't care, as long as you don't fill our edit histories with obscenities....
(I've confronted Ottava where he was disruptive here, the same at meta. I don't go after him, never have, only where he's currently disruptive, and where he's attempting to influence a process, like his unblock request on meta, with his "friends.") --Abd 20:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


Hi Dinsdale. Have we met? I've seen two or three posts from you, here and on Meta, but I don't recognize you as anyone I've met before.

On my talk page, you wrote to Ottava:

Just out of curiosity, are your credentials posted somewhere?

Moulton 12:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Moulton,
We have not met. You do not know me. I will not post my credentials as I do not wish to be non-anonymous. However, I will stipulate that I will never appeal to my own credentials in an argument. I am a firm believer in evaluating the comment, not the commenter's IRL experience. Dinsdale 15:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Of course it is not uncommon for people to ask for citations to support a comment, and then — if one happens to be a credentialed expert in the subject — it's awkward to figure out whether and how to cite one's own work. —Moulton 23:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I think I will just avoid citing anything and live on the strength of my on wiki words. Dinsdale 23:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That works here. Mostly we just do Post-Modern Theater of the Absurd. —Moulton 23:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Warning re harassment[edit]

[1] is crossing the line between criticism and response to arguments in context, into harassment. Please stop. --Abd 01:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please; the parallels are quite clear. Dinsdale 05:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
There are also clear parallels between almost anything and almost anything else. I did look into the history of Merkey, and I know the history of Ottava. While parallels may be made, no question in my mind, there are also vast differences in age, experience, legal position and standing, etc., etc. To simply assert Merkey's contribution history as if it somehow explains Ottava is purely offensive and unlikely to help the situation at all. It might be said that any cogent explanation may fail, in this case, but that's another matter. This one would fail under practically any circumstance. Please stop. Please be more careful. If your motive here is, as Ottava claims, simply to harass him, I'm afraid we will find ourselves in strong opposition. If your motive is to help Wikiversity deal with disruption, fine. If you become involved in actual improvement of Wikiversity, even better.
Please stick with civil, cogent, and relevant argument. If, somewhere, it is necessary to explore Ottava's psychology and character, and to understand the "type", there might be some place for an analogy with Merkey, as well as with many others who have ended up in these kinds of arguments and conflicts, but the bald assertion without specification is definitely offensive, and, frankly, it's not our job to "understand" Ottava. That's his job, and offensive comments don't help. --Abd 16:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Your opinions are your own[factual?], however I must disagree with you regarding the parallels between Merkey and Ottava. Can you provide me with three diffs on any wikimedia project wherein Ottava acknowledges a mistake, owns up to it and apologizes to the other party(ies)? This is the substance of this personality type. They are *never* wrong. They are always the victim, persecuted for their (righteous) beliefs. There are always shadowy conspiracies afoot that threaten the very nature of space and time (or their wiki careers). The members of these nefarious conspiracies are always miscreants with exclusively low, ulterior motives and who are (jealous|hateful|afraid|con artists|trolls) that stalk and harass the poor, poor victim. While you may not see this 'congruency', I do. I have made a long study of exactly this archetype and (I hope my super sekrit snooping skillz are better than Durova's) I tend to make a long study of the person before declaring them to be such a professional victim. Dinsdale 02:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Dindsdale, I acknowledge that some parallels can be made. However, I caution you against making Wikiversity the site of your "study." Ottava is likely to end up banned. Kicking him endlessly does not seem to be either humane or productive. Pursuing people who are paranoid is .... ? There is a fine line between acting to protect others from an individual and harassing him. Ottava is capable of good work and cooperation, but sometimes something breaks. And 'nuff said. My warning stands. I'm not in charge here, I only make suggestions, and sometimes people listen to them and sometimes they don't. --Abd 03:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
1 apology, 2 apology, 3 Apology (at 05:04, 4 December 2008). There are many more, but you asked for 3. A simple search for my user name and "sorry" turns up many hits from me saying such in an honest manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Try again; I see the apologies (always at ANI after things have really hit the fan) but I don't see where you actually come to grips with your attitude and approach. Doing a search for sorry and merkey comes up with the IDENTICAL pattern.
Some quotes from those pages that show that the recipients are equally unimpressed.
  • "If it were possible to believe that was sincere, I would. It's not; I don't. You persisted in your harassment long after being told not to. Clearly you don't mean a word of what you just said."
  • "It isn't the big dispute, Neil. Ottava Rima makes disputes everywhere he goes. Look at all the other users. Look at every response to every thing: attack. He has attacked Bishonen, Geogre, and every other user. Say something, and you get, "This person is evil" in return."
  • "That apology is worthless, we all know that. I want an explanation as to why he wasn't blocked after being told repeatedly to stop his actions when he just kept on going."
  • "Plenty of other editors saw this section, many of us watch AN/I. Many who already know how Ottava can act have seen this, and understand it fully."

No redaction to my talk page please[edit]

Abd, IPs are welcome to edit here unmolested. Please respect my wishes. Dinsdale 03:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, your right, but just so you know, that was not an anonymous editor, that was Moulton who also edits as Caprice. Registered editor, not blocked. --Abd 03:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Ottava and Abd are odd characters. Moulton is even odder. But what do you care what odder people think? —Albatross 07:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
We are all odd characters. Would you chance missing something by allowing other people's word to be clipped. They might just say something fascinating... Dinsdale 17:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)