User talk:Ottava Rima

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome[edit]

Geographylogo.svg Template:Welcome

Italiano: Benvenuto su Wikiversità !
  • beta.Wikiversity è un punto di scambio per le discussioni generali multilingua, sulle politiche di funzionamento di Wikiversità e sugli altri problemi legati al suo sviluppo. Esiste anche un'incubatrice per i nuovi progetti di Wikiversità nelle diverse lingue.
  • Babel è il forum multilingua di Wikiversità, contiene discussioni generali ed annunci sul progetto.
Français: Bienvenue à Wikiversité !
  • Wikiversité beta est un centre d’échange pour des discussions générales multilingues sur les règles de fonctionnement de Wikiversité et d’autres problèmes liés à son développement. Il est également un incubateur pour de nouveaux projets Wikiversité dans diverses langues.
  • Babel est notre forum multilingue de discussion générale et d’annonces.
Svenska: Tack för att du registrerat dig och välkommen till Wikiversitetet.
  • Wikiversity Beta har två huvudsakliga funktioner, det är dels ett nav för flerspråksdiskussioner kring Wikiversitys policies och andra ärenden, och dels en inkubator för nya Wikiversityprojekt med olika språk.
  • Babel är ett flerspråkigt forum för allmänna diskussioner och meddelanden medan Bybrunnen är för diskussioner som gäller endast den svenska delen.
  • Om du är nybörjare när det gäller Wiki kan du hitta kort hjälp här.
Русский: * Викиверситет-бета — это центр общего многоязычного обсуждения правил Викиверситета и других вопросов. Кроме того, это — инкубатор для новых Викиверситетов на различных языках.
  • Вавилон — наш многоязычный форум для общих обсуждений и объявлений.
  • Сообщество — наш русскоязычный портал сообщества, где вы можете узнать всё о русскоязычном сообществе Викиверситета или задать любые вопросы на родном языке.
  • Пожалуйста, установите на свою страницу участника шаблон {{UserReputation/Ru}}, чтобы другие участники могли вас поблагодарить или сделать вам предупреждение. Сейчас это не является обязательным, но со временем есть желание закрепить это в правилах, для приятного, удобного общения и предупреждения конфликтов.
  • Если вы оставите данный шаблон на своей странице, то сможете получать актуальную информацию о событиях, происходящих в проекте.
  • В данный момент происходит проверка на возможность открытия самостоятельного русского раздела Викиверситета [1]. Просим быть активными, т.к. это необходимое для этого условие. Наша слабая сторона — это малое количество предложенных курсов и их слабая проработка, мы будем благодарны, если вы сможете нам в этом помочь.
  • Русская секция Викиверситета скоро будет открыта. Спасибо всем за работу! Но не расслабляемся, это только начало :)
  • ВНИМАНИЕ ! Открыта русская секция Викиверситета (http://ru.wikiversity.org). Просим здесь новых правок не делать. Через некоторое время материал от сюда будет перенесен в русскую секцию.
中文:Template:歡迎
한국어:위키배움터에 오신 것을 환영합니다.
  • 위키배움터는 학습에 국경도 한계도 제약도 없다는 것을 보여줍니다. 위키배움터는 무료의 학습자료와 공부할 기회를 무한정 제공합니다. 누구나 참여하고 배우고 기여할 수 있으며 어떤 자격요건도 필요하지 않습니다. 위키배움터의 학습자는 서로 협력하고 머리를 맞대어 배우고 자신이 가진 지식을 나누게 됩니다. 대문사랑방을 방문하시면 현재 위키배움터의 활동과 내용을 확인하실 수 있습니다.
  • 내가 과연 나눌 지식이 있나 고민하시지 마십시오. 용기를 내어 실험하고 또 실패를 겪으십시오. 배움은 도전하고 실행하면서 극대화되기 때문입니다. 강사학습자 페이지에서 위키배움터 참여자가 할 수 있는 역할을 알 수 있습니다.
  • 다시 한번 오신 것을 환영하며 위키버시티의 좋은 참여자가 되시길 바랍니다.
  • 궁금하신 점이 있으시다면, 위키배움터란 무엇인가?자주 묻는 질문을 참고하시기 바랍니다. 질문방에서 문의하시면, 일정 시간이 지난 후에 기존 사용자의 안내를 받으실 수 있습니다.
English:

<translate>


Thank you for registering, and Welcome to Wikiversity!

  • Wikiversity beta is a hub for general multilingual discussions of Wikiversity policies and other issues. It is also an incubator for new Wikiversity projects in various languages.
  • Babel is our multilingual forum for general discussions and announcements.
  • If you are new to Wiki, here is the bare minimum for editing in wiki.
  • If you are running a course with Wikiversity, consider creating a participant list like Narrative_ecologies/Participants. As your material grows, you may want to elect a custodian to help maintain the pages for the group.


</translate>
العربية: مرحبا بك في ويكي الجامعة!
Ελληνικά: Καλώς ήρθατε στο Βικιεπιστήμιο!
  • Το Βικιεπιστήμιο βήτα είναι μια πλήμνη για τις γενικές πολύγλωσσες συζητήσεις των ζητημάτων του Βικιεπιστημίου. Είναι επίσης ένας επωαστήρας για τα νέα προγράμματα του Βικιεπιστημίου σε διάφορες γλώσσες. Το Βαβέλ είναι το πολύγλωσσο φόρουμ μας, για τις γενικές συζητήσεις μας.
Tiếng Việt: Chào mừng bạn đến với Wikiversity!

- Ottava Rima 19:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Moulton's three-day trial research project[edit]

I have approached Moulton and I feel that it would be in the best interest of the community that Moulton participates in a three day trial ethics research project, as defined below. However, I believe that it would be best that Moulton devotes himself to this project, and that others refrain from responding directly to Moulton during this time. I would ask that if there are any developing problems or concerns, to contact me first, and I will discuss the issue. This will take place in my user space, and I ask that people please respect my user space in this way in order for this task to be completed.

At the end of the three days, I will establish a makeshift peer review process and welcome those to respond to Moulton's research project and to then discuss philosophical issues afterwards.

Day One: Definitions.

I would like you to define the following terms. Please limit your responses to two or three sentences each and no mention of specific users or actions that have taken place on Wikipedia/Wikiversity. Do not discuss their application at this time. Terms: Ethics (general), Ethics (research), Ethics (response), Ethics (editing), Civility, Discourse (general), Discourse (scholarly), Revert, BLP (ethical responsibility), Respect, Commitment.

Day Two: Application.

I would like you to come up with three answers for how to deal with each situation (without talking about particular individuals or past experiences): Someone edits other people's comments, Someone removes content, Someone follows another and attacks others, Someone responds aggressively to another, Two people constantly responding aggressively to each other. After this, apply the terms above and how they become involved in these situations.

Then answer these philosophical questions: When is blocking appropriate during an edit dispute? When is blocking appropriate during a fight between two editors? Is the individual greater than the community?

Day Three: Personal analysis.

For each of your situation's three responses, list two positives and two negatives to each of these responses. Weigh the pros and cons, especially considering how each would make you feel (integrity), make others feel (community), and what kinds of emotional problems could come out of each.

Then, try to come up with an alternate answer to each of the philosophical questions in which you think other people may hold (ones you may not agree with but you find perfectly acceptable).

Peer Review: When Moulton has completed this task, I will ask that the community then respond in a peer reviewed analysis. I will welcome each person to produce their own section without interaction with the other sections. This section will have a short response to the tasks of Day One, Day Two, and Day Three. After enough people have weighed in, I will open up a discuss on what other people's responses were, and focus on what people think are the positives and negatives of what Moulton has come up with, and how we can incorporate these ideas into our own understandings and habits to create a better system of interacting with others.

I feel that this would be beneficial to Moulton and to the community, and that the structure will help us determine what kind of Peer Review system could work in the future. I had a few ideas on how to work out a Peer Review system, and this seemed to be the easiest to put together and try. Remember, this is in user space and not part of any official project right now. This is a trial process. Ottava Rima 17:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Day One: Definitions[edit]

Definitions.

I would like you to define the following terms. Please limit your responses to two or three sentences each and no mention of specific users or actions that have taken place on Wikipedia/Wikiversity. Do not discuss their application at this time. Terms: Ethics (general), Ethics (research), Ethics (response), Ethics (editing), Civility, Discourse (general), Discourse (scholarly), Revert, BLP (ethical responsibility), Respect, Commitment.

Ethics. Ethics is a branch of Philosophy that seeks to develop best practices so as to maximize value and mininize harm. Examples of harm include harmful side effects (e.g. collateral damage), and long-term negative consequences that eventually swamp or undercut any short term gains.

Ethics in research. Ethics in research is a branch of applied ethics where the field of endeavor is research. The most important concern in ethics in research is research with living subjects (especially human subjects).

Ethics in responding to others. Ethics in responding to others in a community such as Wikiversity concerns the development of best practices in terms of one's operating point on Integrated Kohlberg-Gilligan Model. The primary thrust is to hone one's skills at ethical reasoning, which is an instance of Model-Based Reasoning.

Ethics in editing. Ethics in editing content in a site like Wikiversity is one of three pillars of good writing. The three pillars are Accuracy, Excellence, and Ethics. Ethics in writing seeks to maximize the beneficial value of the writing while minimizing any conceivable harm.

Civility. Civility is a cultural practice derived from Politeness Theory, which derives in turn from Facework Theory. The application of these ideas to online communities leads to insights on how best to build a civil community which minimizes undesirable conflict.

Discourse. Discourse is a process of social dialogue undertaken for some overarching objective, such as education, investigation, or group decision making.

Scholarly Discourse. Scholarly discourse is discourse for the purpose of scholarly review, investigation, research, or programs of education. In Wikiversity, the Colloquium is a venue of discourse.

Reversion. Reversion is the act of discarding an incremental change to a document, policy, or practice in favor of an earlier version of the same.

Ethical considerations of BLPs. Ethical considerations of BLPs (Biographies of Living Persons) pertain to the application of ethical principles in crafting biographical accounts of living persons, for publication in mass media such as Wikipedia.

Respect. Respect and Contempt are opposite ends of an axis of regard that applies to interpersonal relationships. The Respect-Contempt Axis is one of six axes that arise in Facework Theory.

Commitment. Commitment is a stage in the development of communities. The sequence is: 1) Communities of Interest, 2) Communities of Practice, 3) Communities of Commitment, 4) Centers of Excellence. At the Commitment stage, the members of the community make promisory commitments to each othey by way of a Social Contract. Communities of Practice which fail to advance to Communities of Commitment sometimes devolve into Communities of Malpractice.

Day Two: Applications[edit]

Application.

I would like you to come up with three answers for how to deal with each situation (without talking about particular individuals or past experiences): Someone edits other people's comments, Someone removes content, Someone follows another and attacks others, Someone responds aggressively to another, Two people constantly responding aggressively to each other. After this, apply the terms above and how they become involved in these situations.

Then answer these philosophical questions: When is blocking appropriate during an edit dispute? When is blocking appropriate during a fight between two editors? Is the individual greater than the community?

  • Someone edits other people's comments
  1. Let it be.
  2. Summarily revert it with a terse edit summary.
  3. Discuss the issue with the concerned editor.
  • Someone removes content
  1. Let it be.
  2. Summarily restore it with a terse edit summary.
  3. Discuss the issue with the concerned editor.
  • Someone follows another and attacks others
  1. Ignore the attack and carry on as if it never happened.
  2. Issue a stern "cease and desist" order.
  3. Discuss the issue with the troubled editor.
  • Someone responds aggressively to another
  1. Ignore them entirely.
  2. Strike back with equal and opposite intensity.
  3. Ignore the aggressive aspect, search for the underlying issue, and discuss it with the troubled editor.
  • Two people constantly responding aggressively to each other
  1. Ignore them entirely.
  2. Set up the lawn chairs and popcorn concession.
  3. Offer to mediate their dispute in accordance with the community's Conflict Resolution Protocol as set forth in the the Community Social Contract.
  • Discussion of applicable vocabulary terms
Each of the above scenarios calls for a spectrum of imaginable practices. I've generally tried to bracket the range of practices from maximally attenuated responses (e.g. the null response) to maximally intensified responses (e.g. aggressively bellicose). Generally one expects to find ethical best practices within these extremes. In terms of sophisticated ethical reasoning, one might strive to ascend to higher rungs on the Kohlberg Ladder. In terms of Gilligan's orthogonal axis of Antipathy-Empathy, one might strive to be more sympathetic or empathetic with the issues and concerns of an adversarial or antagonistic editor. Civil discourse is the preferred method of discovering the concerns or anxieties of others. In civil discourse, the overarching objective is to migrate to the left on each of the following six axes from Facework Theory:

1. The Respect-Contempt Axis

2. The Approval-Condemnation Axis

3. The Cooperation-Antagonism Axis

4. The Freedom-Taboo Axis

5. The Trust-Mistrust Axis

6. The Comfort-Anxiety Axis

In the Argument/Debate Culture, the participants tend to drift to the right on each of the above axes, generating mutual and reciprocal disrespect, disapproval, antagonism, and mistrust.
In the Dialogue Model, the participants seek to create common ground, and seek to conscientiously migrate themselves to jointly shared respect, and mutual approval and cooperation.
In order for a community or culture to advance from the Argument/Debate Culture to the Dialogue Model, the members of the community must be prepared to commit to that paradigm shift in the core architecture of the culture.
  • Philosophical Question #1: When is blocking appropriate during an edit dispute?
Blocking may be the best practice if an editor has departed so far from ethical best practices as to be in a psychotic state (comparable to an out-of-control robot, incapable of processing functional diagnostic messages).
  • Philosophical Question #2: When is blocking appropriate during a fight between two editors?
A referee's time-out may be appropriate when two or more editors are ensnared in an escalating cycle of reciprocal reversions and there is no evidence of fruitful diagnostic discourse underway amongst them.
  • Philosophical Question #3: Is the individual greater than the community?
That depends on the nature of the community. In a combat unit fighting for material gains, it is customary to sacrifice a chess piece for the sake of winning the game. In a spiritual community, saving the individual is an overarching goal. In an educational community, the dilemma is comparable to the one faced by Mrs. Zajac in Tracy Kidder's book, Among Schoolchildren. In that story, the teacher spent an enormous amount of time and energy trying to save two problem children (Clarence and Robert). In the end, Mrs. Zajac failed to reach them, and so everyone lost, including the other children in the class who were neglected while Mrs. Zajac spent so much time on a futile effort to reach Clarence and Robert.

Day Three: Personal analysis[edit]

Personal analysis.

For each of your situation's three responses, list two positives and two negatives to each of these responses. Weigh the pros and cons, especially considering how each would make you feel (integrity), make others feel (community), and what kinds of emotional problems could come out of each.

Then, try to come up with an alternate answer to each of the philosophical questions in which you think other people may hold (ones you may not agree with but you find perfectly acceptable).

  • Someone edits other people's comments
  1. Let it be.
    Positives: No drama. Possible beneficial copyedit improvements.
    Negatives: Possible loss of identity/integrity. Facilitates evasion of responsibility.
  2. Summarily revert it with a terse edit summary.
    Positives: Quick. Preserves authorial integrity.
    Negatives: Unfriendly. Possible loss of good faith editorial improvements.
  3. Discuss the issue with the concerned editor.
    Positives: Collegial. Could produce substantial improvements via collaboration and discussion.
    Negatives: Possible protracted disagreements. Possible excess coverage of minor points of disagreement.
  • Someone removes content
  1. Let it be.
    Positives: No drama. Possible removal of erroneous content.
    Negatives: Possible loss of good content. Possible loss of good will.
  2. Summarily restore it with a terse edit summary.
    Positives: Quick. Asserts importance or relevance of material.
    Negatives: Possible reversion war. Reasons may not be spelled out clearly.
  3. Discuss the issue with the concerned editor.
    Positives: Positives: Collegial. Could produce substantial improvements via collaboration and discussion.
    Negatives: Possible protracted disagreements. Possible unbalanced coverage of points of disagreement.
  • Someone follows another and attacks others
  1. Ignore the attack and carry on as if it never happened.
    Positives: Less interpersonal drama. Stays focused on the real subject.
    Negatives: Attacks may be effective at hurting their target. Attacks may be distracting to third parties.
  2. Issue a stern "cease and desist" order.
    Positives: Assertive. May be effective in arresting the attacks.
    Negatives: May fuel the conflict. May require invocation of a sanction, anathema to collegiality and learning.
  3. Discuss the issue with the troubled editor.
    Positives: May resolve the issue. May arrive at a detente.
    Negatives: May escalate the conflict. May polarize the community.
  • Someone responds aggressively to another
  1. Ignore them entirely.
    Positives: Avoids unwanted drama. Stays focused on the primary objective.
    Negatives: Unchecked aggression could persist and spread like kudzu. By the time it becomes clear that unmitigated aggression is destroying the planet, there may not be any good options left.
  2. Strike back with equal and opposite intensity.
    Positives: Potentially surfaces and solves the problem quickly, at least in the short term. Illustrates the idiocy of recursive WikiDrama for the benefit of the next generation.
    Negatives: Perpetuates wars of mutual reciprocal aggression ad infinitum. Consumes scarce resources without producing any lasting value, other that the lulz of the dramahz itself (for the benefit of future historians of such liminal social dramas).
  3. Ignore the aggressive aspect, search for the underlying issue, and discuss it with the troubled editor.
    Positives: May lead to valuable insights. Demonstrates a high level of ethics, professionalism, and emotional maturity.
    Negatives: May require more education, more cognitive focus, or more emotional maturity than the parties are currently able to manifest. The dialogue may never make and significant progress, and may never terminate.
  • Two people constantly responding aggressively to each other
  1. Ignore them entirely.
    Positives: Others stay out of the cat and dog fight. The warring parties are free to learn to solve their differences by their own preferred methods, on their own timetable.
    Negatives: It's hard to continue to ignore warring parties when they are nuking the planet. Their excess consumption of system resources may cripple the rest of the system for everyone else.
  2. Set up the lawn chairs and popcorn concession.
    Positives: Hastens the learning process for those in the audience who are enthralled by such dramas. Provides an entertaining diversion from the daily drudge work of thinking long and hard about challenging ethical conundrums with insufficient familiarity with the consequences of failing to think them through.
    Negatives: Whoever is footing the bill for the originally intended project might pull the plug. Thinking generally grinds to a halt while munching popcorn and watching the idiotic cartoon dailies.
  3. Offer to mediate their dispute in accordance with the community's Conflict Resolution Protocol as set forth in the the Community Social Contract.
    Positives: Solves the problem efficiently in a near-optimal manner. Saves wear and tear on the amygdala, hippocampus, gut organs, and fists.
    Negatives: Provides no outlet for excess adrenalin or testosterone. Provides negligible entertainment value.
  • Alternate Views on Philosophical Question #1: When is blocking appropriate during an edit dispute?
Blocking is the standard tool for solving disputes. There are no other viable options. Block early and often. Leave it up to the community to decide if and when to overturn a rapid block.
  • Alternate Views on Philosophical Question #2: When is blocking appropriate during a fight between two editors?
Blocking is the standard tool for arresting edit wars. There are no other practical options.
  • Alternate Views on Philosophical Question #3: Is the individual greater than the community?
We are building an encyclopedia. Anyone who is not helping to build an encyclopedia doesn't belong. Those who do not respect community norms should be shown the door. If they return, they should be watched and be shown the door again, rapidly, if it becomes at all clear that they are still up to their old tricks.

Peer Review[edit]

I would now at this time welcome community feed back. This will happen in three phases that represent the three days that Moulton has worked on this. Each phase will have a three part process. Please put a level four subheading beneath each Peer Review part when responding and please don't respond to any other responders at this time. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Part One[edit]

I would like to welcome all to respond to this. However, I would like to ask anyone who responds to one part of this to respond to each part. We shall look at the positives and the negatives of his basic responses.

Day One

Please list one positive statement and one negative statement based on how well Moulton has answered the definitions. Please focus on clarity of the response, any particularly interesting statements, and how Moulton has interpreted this task.

Day Two

Please respond to Moulton's possibile responses to the various situations (Someone edits other people's comments, Someone removes content, Someone follows another and attacks others, Someone responds aggressively to another, Two people constantly responding aggressively to each other) by stating where Moulton has shown an adequate understanding of possible responses to these situations. If there is a situation in which Moulton has not produced a positive way in dealing with the situation appropriately, please provide an alternate answer and briefly explain the positives of acting in this manner.

Day Three

Please add one more positive or one more negative to Moulton's analysis. However, if there is a response from Moulton that you feel is more than appropriate, please feel free to highlight that instead.

User:Privatemusings[edit]

Day One
  • Positive statement - the definitions are concise (per the suggested task), and clear.
  • negative statement - though the task sort of leads one in this direction, the answers seem to me in some ways confident to the point of maybe finding it hard to recognise that other definitions of these terms might exist. To put it another way, these are very 'thought through' definitions in some ways (facework / Kohlberg-Gilligan etc.) - it might be handy to 'pan out' occasionally.
Day Two

It's harder for me to parse this one! In terms of the 1) 2) 3)s - obviously the 3)s are the way to go (I think that's the point?) - overall, particularly the bit after that section seems great to me! - I've got a nagging thought about how attached to a particular paradigm some of the reasoning may be - I wouldn't want the perception that WV may (or may not) have (or lack) a cohesive 'social contract' to act as a sort of trump card in discussion - especially if that ever runs the risk of being circular / self fulfilling. Perhaps another pinch of feedback is to not go too far down the road of explanation / detail in any particular model - sometimes it's hard to follow along!

Day Three

Speaking of the final three 'alternative viewpoints' - I think that's a pretty good summing up of schools of thought out there.

Overall

I think this has been quite an interesting process (and I've only really dipped my toe in, to write the above). The elephant in the room may be the issue of identity and ethics - and the tension between a considered belief that it's necessary (or at least acceptable) to call someone by their full (real) name, and participation in various wiki projects.

Thanks for your work, Ottava and Moulton - and (of course) feedback on my feedback is most welcome :-) Privatemusings 02:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Responder Two name here[edit]

Peer Review Part Two[edit]

A blast from the past[edit]

The resident scholars of Wikiversity have declined to address these issues within their own community.

ArbCom Review of FeloniousMonk[edit]

The Wikipedia Administrator, FeloniousMonk, who relied on the unexamined testimony of Don Hopkins and Bela in his scathing indictment of Moulton, has been unanimously adjudged by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) as guilty of corruption and gross violations of policy, including "meritless accusations against other editors on multiple occasions."

Moulton 21:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel vindicated? Do you think you can stop fixating so much on this and move on to helping improve things yet? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I do not feel vindicated. Here are two items of evidence for that:

“  IRC Chat

(09/22/2008 11:14:24 PM) Caprice: So far, only Privatemusings has responded to your ethics exercise.

(11:16:50 PM) Ottava: I told everyone to stop and I halted it because of your actions and continued crusade on your talk page

(11:16:59 PM) Ottava: I told you that you had to devote yourself to the process or I would stop it

(11:17:03 PM) Ottava: and you failed on your end

(09/23/2008 07:01:22 AM) Caprice: Are you saying you told everyone to discontinue civil discourse with Moulton?

(07:01:22 AM) Ottava is not logged in


“   E-Mail to ArbCom

From: Barry Kort
To: NewYorkBrad (IBM), James Forrester
Cc: Privatemusings, Charles Ainsworth, Kieran Vale, Daniel R. Tobias, Sam Korn
Date: Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 7:37 AM

Subject: Please remediate the harm to the reputations of those sorely mistreated by rogue administrators.

In view of this finding by ArbCom...

2.1) FeloniousMonk has repeatedly shown poor judgement since becoming an administrator, both in using his administrative tools ([43]) ([44]); and engaged in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including threats ([45]); personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([46]), and has made meritless accusations against other editors on several occasions ([47]).

...I request that ArbCom expressly undertake to remediate the damage to the reputation and good name of others who were inappropriately harmed by the pattern of conduct delineated in the above cited Paragraph 2.1.

Please give us back our good name.

Barry

-- The Process of Enlightenment Works In Mysterious Plays.

I will feel vindicated if and when the serious scholars here eschew the unbecoming, unprofessional, unwise, unwarranted, and unsustainable culture of incivility, narcissistic wounding, anankastic conditionals, binding, gagging, and kicking people, and petulantly refusing to adopt and abide by the sensible protocols of scholarly ethics.
Moulton 12:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Ottava, in consideration of your interest in remediating past harms from abusive admins, and in view of your new-found hobby of channeling Moulton, how about channeling the above? —Montana Mouse (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Ottava Rima[edit]

Per the m:Global bans global policy, you are informed of the discussion above. Please comment there and feel free to appropriately distribute more widely in prominent community venues in order to «Inform the community on all wikis where the user has edited». Nemo 10:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)