Re: [Wikiversity-l] SB Johnny

Ottava, you are repeating on Wikiversity your old style of argument, even more seriously tendentious. It's obvious. SBJ explained it to you. He'd love it if you provided him good ammunition to use in preventing me from being a custodian, but you've done about the opposite. I seriously attempted to encourage you to positively contribute. My invitation to you to take on welcoming, on your Talk page, was serious and sincere. I did not expect problems. When you made some welcomes that do -- just my opinion! -- interfere with the practical operation of RCP in conjunction with welcoming, I pointed these out. I did not threaten you. Instead of taking this up as an ordinary dispute, you escalated immediately to the Colloquium, thus showing a radical misunderstanding of non-disruptive dispute resolution process. In any case, I've responded to your concerns there. If you want to make comments on that, you can place them on your Talk page and I'll, at least, link to that from the Colloquium. Be careful, though. If you abuse your Talk page for uncivil comments, you might get Talk page access yanked. Not by me. SBJ only blocked you for a week, so you will get another chance. You could actually get another chance immediately if you'd recognize what you did and sincerely apologize, showing the new understanding. It's the same as at meta, the opposition to your unblock there would vanish if you showed a reason to think it wouldn't just happen all over again. If you, in a week, continue as you did, you will, as a practical certainty, be blocked again. And, again, very likely, not by me. I only do that in emergencies, where there has been prior conflict, and, as bad as it had gotten when SBJ blocked, I didn't think it had gotten to that level yet. "Three banned editors to use Wikiversity to disrupt." What disruption? What "copyright infringing things" exist? You've been asked for specifics, and you haven't provided any. You are simply tossing made-up mud. Yes, Marshallsumter was *accused* of "copyright violation." That remains to be seen. Copying of sentences from published papers is not ordinarily and legally copyright violation, and it is routinely done in an academic environment, with attribution, which was the case with much or most of the problem work on Wikipedia. But it isn't "copyvio" even without attribution, under almost all circumstances. It might be "plagiarism," a different issue. There may have been exceptions, and you should know that everyone who is very active can be found to have made mistakes.