Wikiversity/User:Abd/Block evidence

From CFC
Jump to: navigation, search

From: [1]

Does it seem a bit unseemly to have users being threatened with anonymous 'WMF people'? It certainly seems like a poor way to have a discussion. Dinsdale 04:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Threatened with what? o.O Ottava Rima (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict with below) Being "defanged and declawed," though the use of fangs and claws hasn't been shown. Above is an example:
  • I have some WMF people who are watching this and eager for the people involved to be de-fanged and de-clawed all the way around so that they can come and help the community work on passing basic things like a blocking policy or a deletion policy. In other words, people not a part of the active community here who are going to "help." Now, help is fine, we need good ideas, but when it comes to !voting, it's iffy, Wikiversity is unique among the WMF wikis, in a number of ways. And we've sure had a bunch of people, not seen before, showing up to comment and !vote on the immediate situations, showing no understanding of our traditions.
Before, we had:
  • Threat of block by Ottava, I have notified both of the two admin who are watching the page that you are trying to disrupt and you will most likely be blocked when they log in. And this was followed by, You will be removed from this community following SB Johnny.
  • Ottava claims that 2 neutral custodians are already watching it, and you will be blocked when they come on. Your actions and conduct are unacceptable. If SB Johnny, Jtneill, or the rest try to aid your disruption, I have guarantees that they too will be blocked. If they try to override it, then then that is cause enough to have Meta involvement here to strip them until the proceeding is ended, and if Jtneill tries then he will be put up next. No such admin appeared to block me. If one had, I would not have unblocked myself, since I'd have accomplished my purpose of blowing the whistle.
  • Ottava threatens SBJ: Any attempts to disrupt will result in you being blocked, as two admin have promised to watch over the hearing to ensure that consensus is respected and this policy measure is completed without distraction. Such a promise is not unreasonable, by the way, an admin may well have written that. But Ottava read it as a promise to block, and he interpreted "disruption" to include simple comments that he disagreed with. An admin, making such a promise, would properly show up and, if needed, warn. Not block, not as a first step, unless the offense were egregious and a continuing emergency.
  • Ottava threatens me (and others are implied) with block for an alleged incorrect interpretation of policy and practice, in a comment. Making things up is incivil. Now, you were warned about such statements in the top of this page and if you continue you will be blocked. Your disruption of this community, as well as SB Johnny's, Mu301's, and anyone else who wants to encourage you, is officially over.
  • Ottava's threat continues. Evidence has been provided in the previous sections. If you keep this up, you will be blocked. Again, this is a threat to block because of my interpretation of the filing and the character of the evidence provided.
  • Ottava threatens Stanistani with loss of cooperation: I also find it strange how you can defend a user who has proven to stalk multiple users at Wikiversity irl and do such over a 3 year period. If you honestly feel that such behavior is acceptable, then you can be certain that I could never work with you, and most people could not as that is one of those bright lines that a lot of people are completely uncomfortable with. Ottava is stating something correct, it has been demonstrated, and not only here: he cannot work with people who disagree with him. He assumes that his judgment of the user's behavior is correct, and that anyone who opposes the "kangaroo court" is therefore accepting the unacceptable, and to be shunned.
  • Ottava displays intention to take issues here to meta; he has already tried that and has failed, several times. But it causes disruption at meta (I'd say Ottava is close to being banned there) and creates an impression of a dysfunctional Wikiversity community, increasing the likelihood of support for closure, if that comes up.)
I won't present the links here, but Ottava has, in recent months, twice tried, on meta, to urge Jimbo to intervene here, by pointing out to Jimbo what Ottava thought might "interest" him. Jimbo did not bite. He's tried to get stewards there, to desysop SBJ, arguing tendentiously even when it became obvious (as would be completely expected) that stewards were not about to intervene, they respect local policies and local consensus.
Is that enough of an answer? --Abd 17:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)