User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive2

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Song Parody: Can't Stand Bull[edit]

Title: Can't Stand Bull
Artist: The Ottavan Empire
Composer: Jimmy Kennedy, Nat Simon, Irving Berlin, and Barsoom Tork Associates
MySpace Music: Istanbul (Not Constantinople) — They Might Be Giants

Can't stand bull, I'm constantly irritated.
Can't stand bull, I'm constantly irritated.

Been a long time now, I'm constantly irritated,
Now it's jerkish delight on a slugfest fight.

All the time I'm constantly irritated.
Cuz I can't stand bull and I'm constantly irritated.

So if you've come late to my irritated state,
You'll be hearing me say, "I can't stand bull!"

Even Somey's plan was once a punk rock band,
Why he bagged it I can't say,
Gomi just liked it better that way.

So take my word, I'm constantly irritated,
No you can't go slack being constantly irritated.

Been a long time now, I'm constantly irritated.
Why did my irritation get the works?
That's in nobody's interest but the jerks!

CopyClef 2011 Jimmy Kennedy, Nat Simon, Irving Berlin, and Barsoom Tork Associates.
Resurrection Hackware. All songs abused.

Moulton (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

invitation to register for the Assembly[edit]

  • The Wikiversity:Assembly has been established as a technique for developing reports on topics of import for Wikiversity administration. The Assembly is not a decision-making body, per se. Rather, it is designed to create or discover or estimate consensus, through focused, facilitated, thorough deliberation. Assembly reports may be referenced in regular Wikiversity discussions, but will not directly control outcomes. Where full consensus is not found, minority reports may be issued.
  • I invite you to register for the Wikiversity:Assembly by adding your user name to the Wikiversity:Delegable proxy/Table.
  • Registering for the Assembly creates no specific obligation, but does consent to direct communication as the Assembly may determine is appropriate. You may opt out of such direct communication by adding "no messages" to the Table when you register, in the user comment field, but it is unlikely that the default (communication allowed) will create burdensome traffic for you.

You are invited to name a proxy[edit]

  • When you register for the Assembly, you may optionally designate a "proxy."
  • I suggest that you nominate, as a proxy, the user whom you most trust to participate positively in a Wikiversity discussion if you are unable to participate yourself. The proxy will not be voting for you in any process. Rather, the proxy will be considered to loosely represent you, as a means of estimating probable large-scale consensus based on small-scale participation, in the event that you do not personally participate.
  • If you name a proxy, you will be consenting to direct communication with you by that proxy. If a named proxy accepts the proxy, you become, as long as you maintain the nomination (you may change it at any time), the "client" of the proxy, and by accepting, a proxy has consented to direct communication from the client.


I hope you will consider registering, and, as well, naming a proxy, to loosely "represent" you when you are too busy to directly participate. You have long experience and it could be valuable. Thanks. --Abd 18:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments in Abds nomination for full custodianship[edit]

You need to behave civilly to keep editing privileges, regardless of your personal opinions or concerns, or what you think a person's motives or intentions are or have been. -- darklama  18:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Saying someone is obviously a sock isn't a breach of AGF or civility. That has always been the case. Otherwise, every SPI investigation would be met with a block. Darklama, you know this already. The user should be blocked as an obvious sock. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
How you chose to address the concern is a breach of AGF and civility. The appropriate place to discuss concerns of a sockpuppet is Wikiversity:Request custodian action and not in someone's nomination for full custodianship. What action/behavior is of concern and why should be addressed and not who as you did. Third good faith means making a good faith effort to learn what good faith reasons a person could have for participating and sharing what effort you made to do so, and not ruling out possibilities based on speculation of what is or is not possible, or what people are or are not capable of doing. -- darklama  20:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ottava, while I agree that the person's history here certainly raised some questions, but I don't see any reason to believe that he/she isn't what they claim: simply some friend or acquaintance of Abds from a different haunt. I realize that having poetlister around tends to encourage one to look for puppets under every table (which is of course one of the big problems he causes), but this one doesn't seem to meet the duck test.

You've made your point, so please leave the guy (or gal) alone... you're not going to learn anything by continuing what you've been doing, though you certainly might end up being blocked for the remaining duration of the vote. --SB_Johnny talk 20:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Once Thenub queued the discussion to let the Stewards/Meta matter work out, where did I re-open it or continue it? Seems a little odd for one admin to handle it, then another admin to come hours later, warn people, and exacerbate a dead issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what darklama was referring to, I was referring to the continuing tit-for-tat on darklama's talk. I just don't see that going anywhere but downhill (though I suppose it's possible that you'll end up good friends by the end of the day). --SB_Johnny talk 20:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Darklama knows I respect him and that I like him, so who cares about the friends thing. I mean, I only said I was disappointed in that he was bothered by me saying that the user was probably a sock. He would probably be bothered by the same template that users use to denote someone who was most likely a sock or a single purpose account merely because they made less than 10 edits before. Those templates are used on Commons, Meta,, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are correct requests for checkuser are made to Stewards at Meta because Wikiversity currently has no CheckUsers. However discussing concerns about a possible sockpuppet and proposing what to do about it is different from requesting that a checkuser take action. You did both. The request for checkuser is in the appropriate place, whereas local mention of concern and proposed action are not. -- darklama  22:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The Custodian board is for Custodian issues only. It is important to notify the discussion of the vote because the user was part of the vote. As I said, it is standard to point out people who have very few edits in every WMF wiki. We use to point it out here too. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ottava, this comment might seem presumptuous because I have almost no experience with Wikiversity and you have a great deal of experience. If it comes across as presumptuous, please accept my apology. I'm not trying lecture you, but just make a suggestion for how you can be more effective. I don't think that there was a problem with your questioning my legitimacy as user - after all, as you pointed out, you had never heard of me, I had practically no record on Wikiversity, and it was surprising that I was voting on a custodianship as one of my first Wikiversity comments. It seems reasonable to question who am I, whether I am a sock puppet, and if not, why I am voting on a custodianship. I think the problem was the way that you raised the issue. Rather than ask any questions to try to determine what was going on, you made some (mistaken) assumptions, declared them to be obviously true, claimed that some true facts (that the contributions to the Polish Wikipedia made by "Rosenberg" weren't made by me) were technically impossible, wrote with a very belligerent tone, and in the face of a clear denial from me, continued to insist that you were right. I believe that it was this belligerent tone, rather than expressing a concern that I might be a sock puppet, that was considered uncivil. I think you could have asked me for more information without making me feel that I was being attacked. If you didn't want to ask me anything because you didn't trust me, you could have quietly done more checking yourself without expressing hostility before you were sure of your facts. I suggest that this sort of approach might serve you better - both in online and in-person communications. Rosenberg 05:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Rosenberg, I'm glad to see you share your thoughts on the matter. I hope Ottava Rima will be positively impacted by your comments and be more supportive in the future. Ottava Rima, I agree with Rosenberg's comments. Ottava Rima, I think you need to be more supportive in your comments in the future, per Wikiversity:Please do not bite the newcomers. Ottava Rima, I hope you would be disappointed too were someone to accuse you of being an obvious sockpuppet and asked why you haven't been blocked yet, and I hope you would want people to be more supportive in the future too. -- darklama  06:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
As confirmed in mail, the above user's claims about SUL and what is "technically impossible" are not something a new person would know enough about the Wiki to be informed about. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)