On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote:
Austin,
Maybe you didn't realize but I am the top organizer of Wikiversity. Gerard's call for political activism against that organization is completely unacceptable and harms projects like my own that have to deal with large institutions and the rest.
If you want to claim that I should be moderated, then push that fringe political view as you just did, then there is something very wrong here. Your statements about the legality have been 100% wrong, to an embarrassing extent. These two combined represent a very major problem.
The Foundation-l is for Foundation discussion, and not for pushing fringe views that would embarrass our projects. You do realize that, right? Moderators serve only as long as they enforce that, and are you going to demonstrate in the above that you will be doing 100% opposite of your job?
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
1. My name is André, not Austin 2. The first one to call for moderation was you 3. If copyleft is embarassing wikiversity, then I propose you leave the Wikimedia Foundation, because it happens to be one of our principles 4. I did not abuse my moderator status, i donáf [pyojh[- n[ ¾»bnyttfg
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote:
Austin,
Maybe you didn't realize but I am the top organizer of Wikiversity. Gerard's call for political activism against that organization is completely unacceptable and harms projects like my own that have to deal with large institutions and the rest.
If you want to claim that I should be moderated, then push that fringe political view as you just did, then there is something very wrong here. Your statements about the legality have been 100% wrong, to an embarrassing extent. These two combined represent a very major problem.
The Foundation-l is for Foundation discussion, and not for pushing fringe views that would embarrass our projects. You do realize that, right? Moderators serve only as long as they enforce that, and are you going to demonstrate in the above that you will be doing 100% opposite of your job?
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
- My name is André, not Austin
- The first one to call for moderation was you
- If copyleft is embarassing wikiversity, then I propose you leave
the Wikimedia Foundation, because it happens to be one of our principles 4. I did not abuse my moderator status, i donáf [pyojh[- n[ ¾»bnyttfg
Hm, I suspect he meant to send that to me. Good reply though, Andre—I'm happy to let you field list administrator e-mails any day.
Very simply, Jeffrey, I'll take you off moderation when you've demonstrated that you can contribute to a topic without acting like a jerk. I've got to say that you're not doing a very good job of it, so far.
Austin
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote:
Austin,
Maybe you didn't realize but I am the top organizer of Wikiversity. Gerard's call for political activism against that organization is completely unacceptable and harms projects like my own that have to deal with large institutions and the rest.
If you want to claim that I should be moderated, then push that fringe political view as you just did, then there is something very wrong here. Your statements about the legality have been 100% wrong, to an embarrassing extent. These two combined represent a very major problem.
The Foundation-l is for Foundation discussion, and not for pushing fringe views that would embarrass our projects. You do realize that, right? Moderators serve only as long as they enforce that, and are you going to demonstrate in the above that you will be doing 100% opposite of your job?
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
- My name is André, not Austin
- The first one to call for moderation was you
- If copyleft is embarassing wikiversity, then I propose you leave
the Wikimedia Foundation, because it happens to be one of our principles 4. I did not abuse my moderator status, i donáf [pyojh[- n[ ¾»bnyttfg
Hm, I suspect he meant to send that to me. Good reply though, Andre—I'm happy to let you field list administrator e-mails any day.
I'm not sure whether I am though. This message plus the discussion that was the base of it has cost me 50 Euros in things I broke throwing them through my room, plus a severe loss of feeling of self-worth. I don't think that's worth it.
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 17:50, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure whether I am though. This message plus the discussion that was the base of it has cost me 50 Euros in things I broke throwing them through my room, plus a severe loss of feeling of self-worth. I don't think that's worth it.
By the way I'm sure there are several of us who agree in Jefrrey being very much off limits, offending, and doing it at the wrong place, which is usually shortened as "being a troll".
Wikipedia, wikimedia and the people around here are working with, based on and most definitely agree with open content and other free licenses, the whole project lives of and based on them, so starting a propaganda against it _HERE_ is definitely a very unwise and offending move. Without much thinking it's obvious that it will generate strong emotions, harsh attacks, and lots of ad hominem debates, and nothing, really nothing good will be created as a result.
Not accepting the fact that people who create open content are going to fight against businesses who try to destroy open content is a clueless thing to do. Debating it is similarly clueless act. You do not start debate someone's existence with him.
I (among others) strongly agree in Jeffrey being moderated until he realise that his propaganda really does not belong here. It is against almost everybody's world view around here, and offending a whole community with reasons we consider at best baseless is extremely counterproductive.
And, as a sidenote, we're not pirates, robbers, murderers or rapers. [And other artifically emotion-filled buzzwords supporting the closed-content based businesses, pick your favourite.] We _create_ open content. We _create_ copyrighted materials (and license them for free). Jeffrey, among others, is using our products, our content. That is what Creative Commons is about. To protect our interests, business or other. And who are you, or anyone, to attack our interests based on our own content...?
And as a different sidenote: if you hate it, stop using it. Try to live your life without using open source, open content. Go on. First, stop using this list, because it is run on open source software, running on open source servers. Then you may well unplug your internet connection, since good chance is that you connect to one of such servers. You mostly better stop using the web, since the servers are open source by large. Stop email. You may even have to avoid some mobile phones, Tv set top boxes, DVD players, music players, and so on. Oh and avoid Wikipedia, and other Wikimedia content, and mostly all wikis. Fortuinately you can eat and drink and breath. But avoid computers since they'll surely pollute your business-based pureness with open content filth. *smirk*
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Peter Gervai grinapo@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 17:50, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure whether I am though. This message plus the discussion that was the base of it has cost me 50 Euros in things I broke throwing them through my room, plus a severe loss of feeling of self-worth. I don't think that's worth it.
By the way I'm sure there are several of us who agree in Jefrrey being very much off limits, offending, and doing it at the wrong place, which is usually shortened as "being a troll".
Wikipedia, wikimedia and the people around here are working with, based on and most definitely agree with open content and other free licenses, the whole project lives of and based on them, so starting a propaganda against it _HERE_ is definitely a very unwise and offending move. Without much thinking it's obvious that it will generate strong emotions, harsh attacks, and lots of ad hominem debates, and nothing, really nothing good will be created as a result.
Not accepting the fact that people who create open content are going to fight against businesses who try to destroy open content is a clueless thing to do. Debating it is similarly clueless act. You do not start debate someone's existence with him.
I (among others) strongly agree in Jeffrey being moderated until he realise that his propaganda really does not belong here. It is against almost everybody's world view around here, and offending a whole community with reasons we consider at best baseless is extremely counterproductive.
And, as a sidenote, we're not pirates, robbers, murderers or rapers. [And other artifically emotion-filled buzzwords supporting the closed-content based businesses, pick your favourite.] We _create_ open content. We _create_ copyrighted materials (and license them for free). Jeffrey, among others, is using our products, our content. That is what Creative Commons is about. To protect our interests, business or other. And who are you, or anyone, to attack our interests based on our own content...?
And as a different sidenote: if you hate it, stop using it. Try to live your life without using open source, open content. Go on. First, stop using this list, because it is run on open source software, running on open source servers. Then you may well unplug your internet connection, since good chance is that you connect to one of such servers. You mostly better stop using the web, since the servers are open source by large. Stop email. You may even have to avoid some mobile phones, Tv set top boxes, DVD players, music players, and so on. Oh and avoid Wikipedia, and other Wikimedia content, and mostly all wikis. Fortuinately you can eat and drink and breath. But avoid computers since they'll surely pollute your business-based pureness with open content filth. *smirk*
I first checked is he a board member of WM AU. Fortunately, he is not.
I am agreed with everything, except that there are some of us who politically support free usage of copyrighted material. And I didn't know that Lessig supports it. Thanks to Ottava, I am positively changing my position toward Lessig.
Please, someone confirm for me that he was not put on moderation because of his views, but rather because of his behavior!
-Rich Holton
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Peter Gervai grinapo@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 17:50, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm not sure whether I am though. This message plus the discussion that was the base of it has cost me 50 Euros in things I broke throwing them through my room, plus a severe loss of feeling of self-worth. I don't think that's worth it.
By the way I'm sure there are several of us who agree in Jefrrey being very much off limits, offending, and doing it at the wrong place, which is usually shortened as "being a troll".
Wikipedia, wikimedia and the people around here are working with, based on and most definitely agree with open content and other free licenses, the whole project lives of and based on them, so starting a propaganda against it _HERE_ is definitely a very unwise and offending move. Without much thinking it's obvious that it will generate strong emotions, harsh attacks, and lots of ad hominem debates, and nothing, really nothing good will be created as a result.
Not accepting the fact that people who create open content are going to fight against businesses who try to destroy open content is a clueless thing to do. Debating it is similarly clueless act. You do not start debate someone's existence with him.
I (among others) strongly agree in Jeffrey being moderated until he realise that his propaganda really does not belong here. It is against almost everybody's world view around here, and offending a whole community with reasons we consider at best baseless is extremely counterproductive.
And, as a sidenote, we're not pirates, robbers, murderers or rapers. [And other artifically emotion-filled buzzwords supporting the closed-content based businesses, pick your favourite.] We _create_ open content. We _create_ copyrighted materials (and license them for free). Jeffrey, among others, is using our products, our content. That is what Creative Commons is about. To protect our interests, business or other. And who are you, or anyone, to attack our interests based on our own content...?
And as a different sidenote: if you hate it, stop using it. Try to live your life without using open source, open content. Go on. First, stop using this list, because it is run on open source software, running on open source servers. Then you may well unplug your internet connection, since good chance is that you connect to one of such servers. You mostly better stop using the web, since the servers are open source by large. Stop email. You may even have to avoid some mobile phones, Tv set top boxes, DVD players, music players, and so on. Oh and avoid Wikipedia, and other Wikimedia content, and mostly all wikis. Fortuinately you can eat and drink and breath. But avoid computers since they'll surely pollute your business-based pureness with open content filth. *smirk*
I first checked is he a board member of WM AU. Fortunately, he is not.
I am agreed with everything, except that there are some of us who politically support free usage of copyrighted material. And I didn't know that Lessig supports it. Thanks to Ottava, I am positively changing my position toward Lessig.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 21:31, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Please, someone confirm for me that he was not put on moderation because of his views, but rather because of his behavior!
Definitely for his language. There are people with simlarly radical views unmoderated. :-)
g
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Please, someone confirm for me that he was not put on moderation because of his views, but rather because of his behavior!
Yes, and I think I said as much at the time.
Austin
On 26 June 2010 14:44, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote:
Austin,
Maybe you didn't realize but I am the top organizer of Wikiversity.
Wikiversity has a "top organizer"? What does that mean?
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 June 2010 14:44, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote:
Austin,
Maybe you didn't realize but I am the top organizer of Wikiversity.
Wikiversity has a "top organizer"? What does that mean?
According to Ottava, he is in charge of Wikiversity - sort of its equivalent of Jimmy. He says the position was created through all of his hard work and dedication.
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 June 2010 14:44, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote:
Austin,
Maybe you didn't realize but I am the top organizer of Wikiversity.
Wikiversity has a "top organizer"? What does that mean?
According to Ottava, he is in charge of Wikiversity - sort of its equivalent of Jimmy. He says the position was created through all of his hard work and dedication.
Huh? How so? http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Ottava+Rima&lang=e... http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=... Citation required (for everything mentioned above).
On 06/27/2010 12:10 PM, quiddity wrote:
According to Ottava, he is in charge of Wikiversity - sort of its equivalent of Jimmy. He says the position was created through all of his hard work and dedication.
Huh? How so? http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Ottava+Rima&lang=e... http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=... Citation required (for everything mentioned above).
Interesting. That led me to rummage a little, and apparently this is not the first time Ottava Rima has had trouble meeting project behavioral norms. He's currently under a 1-year ban on the English Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava_Rima...
As part of that, Jayron32 describes what he sees as "Ottava Rima's standard MO": "He starts an entirely inappropriate discussion, and as soon as other editors call him on it, he starts to give 'official warnings' and all sorts of other inappropriate responses."
Given that this is recurring drama-creating behavior, perhaps we can move on to the "ignore" stage of WP:RBI.
William
On 27 June 2010 20:42, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Given that this is recurring drama-creating behavior, perhaps we can move on to the "ignore" stage of WP:RBI.
On enwiki, we did that ages ago. I don't believe he is blocked on Wikiversity (yet).
On 06/27/2010 12:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 27 June 2010 20:42, William Pietriwilliam@scissor.com wrote:
Given that this is recurring drama-creating behavior, perhaps we can move on to the "ignore" stage of WP:RBI.
On enwiki, we did that ages ago. I don't believe he is blocked on Wikiversity (yet).
Sorry I wasn't clear. When I said "we", I meant foundation-l, not anything broader.
William
Now if we were to get into a pissing contest over the top organizers of Wikiversity, I would say the persons most likely to be considered founders would be John Schmidt, Cormac Lawler, and Robert Horning. Ottava does have a point that he is one of the most senior active custodians, since not that many of the custodians are active.
________________________________ From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sun, June 27, 2010 5:55:48 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
On 26 June 2010 14:44, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote:
Austin,
Maybe you didn't realize but I am the top organizer of Wikiversity.
Wikiversity has a "top organizer"? What does that mean?
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It has been said already in different ways but since it appears not to be being followed. As much as i may disagree with some of what he said and the way he said it talking about Ottava on this list at the moment has become at best off-topic.
Continuing to talk about our concerns and problems about a user who is either on moderation or no longer subscribed to the list (and therefore much less likely to be either a current problem on the list or able to respond) is neither on-topic or to be honest fair. Neither of the two emails should have been sent in the first place and even ignoring that the conversation has gone on to long.
Let's end this.
James Alexander Jamesofur
On Sunday, June 27, 2010, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Now if we were to get into a pissing contest over the top organizers of Wikiversity, I would say the persons most likely to be considered founders would be John Schmidt, Cormac Lawler, and Robert Horning. Ottava does have a point that he is one of the most senior active custodians, since not that many of the custodians are active.
From: Thomas Dalton To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Sun, June 27, 2010 5:55:48 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
On 26 June 2010 14:44, Andre Engels wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote:
Austin,
Maybe you didn't realize but I am the top organizer of Wikiversity.
Wikiversity has a "top organizer"? What does that mean?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org