Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Vigilant

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Image_filter_referendum/en/Other

He just can't seem to quit being a giant, throbbing {expletive deleted}.

Posted by: Somey

Perhaps, but somebody has to argue that position or it would just be an echo chamber in there, right? Assuming you're against filtering, wouldn't you rather the person be him, given his general unpopularity?

Also, are you referring to the whole page, or the argument with 178.201.100.215 in particular? It looks like you're referring to the whole page.

I actually think Ottava makes some fairly sensible points there. Just because you'll never get him to admit there's a slippery slope involved, doesn't mean he's completely wrong about everything else, does it? Unless it's his persistence alone that's bothersome... but y'know, it's Wikipedia, so you'll have that.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Ottava's unique gift is to take an otherwise sensible position, blend it with a few hyperbolisms and paranoid rants, then spit it out in a way that makes the otherwise sensible position look at least as crazy as the otherwise nonsensical position he's arguing against.

Posted by: Milton Roe

The fundamentalist mindset tends to be characterized by binary Aristotelian thinking. No fuzzy sets. They very often only see black and white and do not recognize shades of grey, and thus (by definition) do not see slippery "slopes." Just cliffs and discontinuities between correct and incorrect, right and wrong, good and bad. Take a rather obvious process like formation of a human baby from a couple of cells and they can tell you EXACTLY when a complete human being appears--POOF--out of the tissue. No brain? Not a problem for a fundie. A Platonic ideal don't need no stinkin' brain.

Children think like this, too, right up to around age ten. In many ways fundies are like narcissists-- they would be normal children, if they WERE children. They have this quality of never growing up to mature "form-ops" (formal operational) thinking. These qualities (selfish, simple, never unreserved in judgement) are endearing and often humorous in animals and kids. In human adults, not so much.

Posted by: Milton Roe

One of the Sleeping Beauty bad-fairy curses, I suppose, along with the small penis. I remains only to figure out what the last good-fairy did, to partly compensate.

"Ah, but the child will be sensitive to poetry..."

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Indeed, that is one of the characteristics that the infamous Jost metastudy of conservatism identified. You know, the one that was derided as claiming that conservatism is a mental illness, even though Jost never made that claim. It could just be confirmation bias on my part, but I've noticed that Jost' observations are pretty much entirely correct, with the caveat (which Jost himself noted) that far-left groups sometimes also exhibit the same tendencies.

As to the question posed by the OP, why can't he be both? Trolling is a form of sociopathy, after all.

(Edited to correct spelling of John Jost's name. Sorry.)

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Plato has nothing to do with it. Unless you rely on Aristotelians for characterizations of Plato's ideas.

Posted by: Vigilant

I am the great and powerful Ottava! You cannot stop meeeee!
AAAaarrrrrgggghhhhh!
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ottava_Rima&diff=next&oldid=2852879

Whoopsie!
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WM:RFH#User:Ottava_Rima

You are *such* a tool, Jeffrey. Go finish your *stupid* thesis already.


This ends as it must, with tears and a journey...

Posted by: radek

Hmm. Take a look at the admin who originally blocked Ottava. Do people who look like that really edit Wikimedia projects?

Posted by: thekohser

Are you talking about http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:B%C3%A9ria_Lima.jpg? No, of course people who look like that have nothing to do with Wikimedia projects.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Is she legal?

Posted by: lilburne

Based on commons uploads seems to have the same interests as FT2.

Posted by: Vigilant

Ottava is a strange bird.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABaseball_Bugs&action=historysubmit&diff=58144151&oldid=58075597

And irony is his planetary mineral.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Sadly, Netflix doesn't seem to have "The Chronicles of Riddick" available for streaming yet, but at least I can view "The Chronicles of Ottava Rima" for free.

You seem awfully interested in him though, dear Vigilant. I hope for all of our sakes that you're not considering bearing his children...

Posted by: Abd

I can be grateful I'm blocked on meta at the moment, because I'd be awfully tempted to comment on Ottava's latest.

He's spouting nonsense on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Proposal:_.22new_wiki_importer.22_global_group a rather arcane piece of business. He only has experience with transwiki import, a simple and relatively safe process, because it only can import stuff, the way the wikis are set, from specified WMF wikis. XML import is highly dangerous, but Ottava's arguments that it's not needed are way off.

I ran into a situation where XML import would have done the trick nicely. And I proposed that it be enabled, on Wikiversity. But then I realized just how effing dangerous that tool can be. It should not be available to ordinary administrators. It imports edits, as they are, using user names, as they are, from a file that can be manipulated by the uploader. It could create hundreds of pages in one import. It could add many edits that would look just like they were made by a user, that the user did not make. These edits would then appear in the contributions of that editor, looking the same as any ordinary contributions. Trivial to do. I don't know, however, if all the individual changes are logged, or if the upload is logged as a single event. If the former, it is *slightly* less dangerous, but could still take a mountain of work by a privileged user to undo.

I think this tool (import/upload) is limited to developers, and for quite good reason. But Ottava's "You Are Wrong! You Are Completely Unqualified! There are No Arguments that Can Be Made! " style obscures that issue.

And it gets worse on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_bans

The proposals for global bans are highly dangerous to the independence of the individual WMF wikis. It makes meta in to a governing structure for the wikis, moving away from the original, and well-understood, coordinating role for meta. In any case, Ottava is highly exercised to prevent any exceptions from being made, by local wikis, even if a 'crat is involved, to a ban declared at meta, for Poetlister. And he argues in typical Ottava style against anyone who questions the wisdom of this prohibition.

As often happens, Ottava http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_bans&diff=3034293&oldid=3033939, but even here he can be seen to have missed the point. Nobody is asking for Poetlister to be "unbanned," i.e., for the account to be unlocked. All that is under discussion is whether or not local communities can defeat the operation of the lock, as they can -- without controversy -- the global blacklist or global blocks, essentially may they "opt out" of the global decision, consciously. Ottava really wants to prohibit this.

Seth Finklestein comes in with a civil-libertarian argument, and so Ottava ishttp://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_bans&diff=3047060&oldid=3047030

I've asked Ottava for evidence of the "gaining personal information" claim, which relates to Ottava's charges that Poetlister abused checkuser (as Cato). Given that there is lots of contrary evidence on this, that the checkuser abuse claim was not found in the meta RfC, my question is reasonable, I think. In any case, this is vintage Ottava, a series of sound-bite claims designed to make his "opponent" look as bad as possible. In this case by defaming someone he thinks the opponent is supporting, which isn't the case here.

*goal of gaining personal information ... a vague claim, involving mind-reading. Hey don't we all like to obtain "personal information" in one way or another?

*socking. Yes, Poetlister certainly did a lot of that, it's undeniable. But ... when was the last time? And if socks are partitioned by wiki, what, exactly, is the harm? His old socking involved lots of stuff that was beyond the pale, though sometimes it was actually harmless; if he did harm with votestacking on Wikiquote, for example, it wasn't obvious, I reviewed many of those examples. All he was doing, it looks like, was creating uncontroversial votes, perhaps to inflate the appearance of a second centrist account, well-aligned with the community. Reprehensible, yes, but not as reprehensible as attempts to overturn consensus with socking! Really, just laziness, is how I'd describe it. I'll have to remember this trick, though. Cool. Just don't do anything to be suspected until after checkuser data expires, and be careful to avoid time correlation. If I ever decide to take a sock to admin, this would be a great way to do it. But I could do it better. Follow the voting of a number of established editors, instead of your own. Just rubber-stamp them with a few acronym comments, you know, "per BigTimeUser, plus [[WP:XYZ]]." Whatever. Efficient. How to Make Friends and Influence People. Agree with them.

And if anyone asks you, noticing a pattern, you say, "Why, of course! I follow BigTimeUser's contributions and check out what he says. This guy really knows his stuff! Got a problem with that?" If you are lucky, they will checkuser you and BigTimeUser. Friends for life, you will be. He knows you and he were falsely accused.

*identity theft. That's a crime, you know. Poetlister did some, ah, unfortunate stuff, reprehensible -- and apologized for it, taking a real-world risk by doing so. But identity theft he did not do. It's possible it's been done to him, there is some stuff floating around in wikihistory that was probably an imposter pretending to be him. That's identity theft. Pretending to be another real person. Not creating a fantasy identity and "fooling" people into believing you. His use of an image without the permission of the person photographed, that was quite possibly a civil tort, but was not identity theft because he did not pretend to be her, the real person. There is no way he could have been prosecuted for identity theft. So this comment by Ottava (which has also been made by many people much more responsible than Ottava) is libel. And who cares? Not those watching and guarding the WMF against hosting libel, eh? (To be sure, Poetlister probably has not made a formal complaint. If he did, and this stuff was left up, he'd have a cause of action at law *against the WMF,* which certainly has deeper pockets than poor Ottava.)

All this stuff happened years ago. There are no claims backed by any credible evidence that Poetlister's harmless contributions at Wikiversity are harming anyone. The most cogent claim would be that his ability to use email there allows him to then send "deceptive emails," though those emails would all be identified as coming from ... Poetlister. And he could do that anyway, it can't be stopped, if he's willing to create socks. In fact, the implementation of the global ban is through a global lock, which does not shut off email. In other words, all that the lock actually does is to prevent him from openly editing as Poetlister, thus leaving an IP trail for checkuser. If he were really dangerous, one would want him to be openly editing in a place where no harm is done. So that his IP would be visible. He's skilled, and probably has taken precautions -- he was a checkuser, after all -- but all it takes is one slip. If he's doing anything reprehensible.

It gets worse.

Posted by: Abd

Hint: this is not about Poetlister. it's about the independence of the wikis, and Poetlister is being used as a poster boy for global control. It's quite obvious that if protection were the goal, this would be handled quite differently.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_bans&diff=3047199&oldid=3047194 becoming stronger in his attack on Seth, using escalating descriptions of Poetlister behavior.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_bans&diff=3047254&oldid=3047225 while arguing ever more strongly. Seth is not arguing for an unban of Poetlister, he's arguing for the dangers of strict global bans, decided at meta, which then are interpreted to control what the local wikis can and cannot do. Many users (though it might not be a majority) are quite aware of just how dangerous this is. For starters, because of the huge and often highly-motivated Wikipedia user base, this would demolish the independence of the other wikis. This will happen, almost certainly, what's been seen so far is the tip of the iceberg.
Again, as far as I've seen, nobody has proposed a global "unban." Indeed, one of the unworkable proposals being considered is an idea that if a local wiki wants to allow a globally banned user to edit, they should be required to see and obtain an unlock. Which then, if the user is considered dangerous, would expose "unsuspecting wikis" to the user through SUL. Rather, a local wiki can, presently -- there is precedent with Thekohser and others -- decide to allow the user to edit there, and they do it by either renaming to delink the account from SUL, or by allowing a declared sock to edit (or, it's happened, by allowing an undeclared sock to edit, but disclosed to admins or 'crats or checkusers on the site). This creates practically no hazard to other sites and does not require a disruptive and often highly-contentious process at meta.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_bans&diff=3047255&oldid=3047254And then http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_bans&diff=3047321&oldid=3047293:This is so rich! The discussion is not of unbanning Poetlister. It is of global ban process. But, in fact, the major example before people's minds, it's rather obvious, is Poetlister, the whole topic was raised because of Poetlister. Ottava's involved because of Poetlister. The same principles being asserted in these discussions could easily, and might be, applied to Ottava himself. Ottava, though, doesn't care about that, all he really cares about is going after one of his favorite targets: Poetlister. If involvement with Wikiversity (which is what he means by "community") is necessary, then there is no ban of Poetlister. The RfC had, as I recall, two persons from Wikiversity who commented. (Besides Ottava? I forget). There was myself, opposing the ban, based on review of evidence and the likely effect, plus the global considerations involved with global bans, and SB Johnny, who was pretty neutral.

It's a common Ottava ploy to assert that someone he's debating with has no right to comment. Ottava is, above, revealing his concept of bans as punishment. He's not at all concerned about protection, really. Real police, concerned with actual protection, rather than "instant justice," often leave drug dealers -- and even terrorists! -- at large, because they can watch them. Ottava wants "justice." I.e., he wants to see the Bad People punished, and Poetlister is a very handy Bad Person.
This is, again, classic Ottava. When he's really gone out on a limb, he then "closes" with a claim that "You lost." That, by the way, is a classic way to troll for more outraged comment.

Look, all you idiots at Wikipedia Review think Poetlister is Evil Personified. Well, you lost! Stop lying!

This actually works with idiots. I wonder if any will bite. Someday, ask me to tell the story of the "Ignant Brothers," I heard it from inmates at San Quentin. One thing I'll point out: dealt for years with real criminals, actual murderers, felons. I don't get terribly exercised by Bad Editors -- unless I've drunk too much Wiki Kool-Aid, it rots the brain and one starts to become awfully imbalanced. OMG! They've lied about cold fusion! Call the Police! Strategic Air Command! REALLY, THIS IS SERIOUS! The future of the planet depends on this!

Seth nails it. 'Nuff said. I predict that Ottava is history within at most a few weeks. He's on his last life at meta, I doubt that if he's blocked again, he'll find anyone willing to touch it.

Posted by: EricBarbour

tl;dr

(sorry Jeff)

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Me too.

Posted by: Abd

You fully deserve that headache, SBJ. It's going to get worse before it gets better, sorry to say. You get what you pay for.

Posted by: tarantino

Her blogger profile pic is also quite lovely. Who would have guessed she's a theologian?

http://www.blogger.com/profile/13132702039138562947

The gentleman who took that picture, A Brazilian pastor named Christian Bitencourt, http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?ref=SERP&br=ro&mkt=en-US&dl=en&lp=PT_EN&a=http%3a%2f%2fpt.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fUsu%25C3%25A1rio_Discuss%25C3%25A3o%3aBeria%2f2007%2fNovembro.

Lest someone get the idea that User:Béria is actually some middle-aged statistician who appropriated that photo, there are http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:B%C3%A9ria_Lima.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Can everyone who isn't a 16-year-old boy please raise their hands now?

Posted by: Abd

I'd raise my hand except that I'm still under 16, 51 years later.

Meanwhile, on our dear topic, this was too rich to pass up, given that I'm under 16.

Ottava is sitting in a bar, he's appointed himself the greeter, so he can win points for future play. So in walks a new customer, wearing a fresh name tag.

http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abusemerump&oldid=828834:And the newcomer says... ? Prize for the best answer, a personal missive from Abd. No warranties, express or implied, but normally these are useful for doorstops, keeping tarps from blowing away in the wind, or, if read, as a treatment for insomnia.

Ah! Another one,http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TuurDS&oldid=3069589Looks like Ottava was up late. Drunk? What?

Meanwhile, reasonable requests often sit with no notice on meta, for example, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abd#Block, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Abd.27s_unblock_request, and, then, http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum&diff=3069538&oldid=3068918, just a bit earlier than the above, showing how clearly he was thinking.He's talking about, among others, a steward. But there is a more obvious application of the block tool, easily determined by just reviewing Ottava's recent contributions on meta. Considering what I had to do to get blocked on meta, like .... what? ... meta is penny wise and pound foolish.

Posted by: Abd

"Theologian" is no surprise, seeing that blogger photo. Men see her and fall over with, "Oh, my God!" Might as well put it to good use, besides getting ahead, so to speak, on Wikimedia projects. Shows good sense, too, re the Ottava block. However ....

Poetlister is Very Bad because he shows a photo of a young woman to win friends and influence people.
This user is, what, because she shows photos of a young woman to win friends and influence people?

The difference, of course, is that Beria is -- probably! -- actually a woman, the one in the photo. That's not a difference in substance, as to Wikimedia business, since "theologian" and "editor" don't depend on "real" gender. Except, of course, to Ottava. He's got a thing about "fake." Fake woman, bad. Fake boobs, bad. Fake genitals, bad. Fake arguments (defined as disagreeing with Ottava), Very Very Bad. Ban them all!

Posted by: communicat

Oh god, here goes Molten Row again.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Bless me, mama, for I have sinned!

Posted by: Abd

I thought the analysis was pretty cogent. Don't confuse "Fundamentalist" with one who is returning to "fundamentals," sometimes people who are actually doing that will call themselves "fundamentalists." However, what these Fundamentalists, being described, are returning to, is a caricature of the true fundamentals, as a reaction to what they believe is Wrong. Like, actually looking and seeing and describing and thinking and testing ideas. That's all Wrong because they imagine it is Against the Fundamentals, which, to them is, "Believe as I believe or you are doomed."

In Islam, these people were recognized early on as a literally deviant sect, the Khawarij, or "Kharijites." The name means the "Seceders," because they condemned the rest of the community. They assassinated the fourth khalifs because he ('Ali), son-in-law of the Prophet, wasn't fanatical enough for them. They also tried to simultaneously kill the "fifth khalif," who, making a long story short, was the first power-grabber, who founded a dynasty, but they failed, all they accomplished was to pave the road by removing 'Ali.

Their spiritual descendants are the Wahhabi fundamentalists of Saudi Arabia, the thinking spawned al-Qa'ida. Historically, these people killed everyone who disagreed with them, if they could get power over them.

So, by brother and sister Christians and others, Islam is also afflicted by "fundamentalists" who corrupt a message of love and honesty and caring, who forgive and "love their neighbors" with strict punishments, the death penalty, banning for disagreements, and general You Are All Wrong thinking.

Posted by: Abd

You wish.

No sin in being normal. Actually, no sin in being abnormal, either. Wanting something, seeing it as desirable, is no sin at all. It's what we might actually do in response to our desires that can get us in trouble.

I'll say from experience that women this beautiful are not necessarily the best "choice," if one is faced with the choice. However, sometimes men don't have much of a choice, it is as if we've been pushed off a cliff. My God! I'm falling! What do I do now?

Enjoy the ride! It will all be over soon enough. Carpe diem, go for the gold. Keep your eyes wide, the chance won't come again.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Boy, are you depressing!



Eh, phooey - Jimmy Soul said the same thing to music:

Posted by: Abd

Well, maybe you are depressed, but, if so, not because I'm "depressing." How you respond to reality, how it occurs to you, is up to you. I can tell you that what I wrote is the opposite of depressing to me. I live my life more fully, more passionately, because I know I'm dying.
Indeed he did. I know the song, I can't hear the video now -- this computer has no functioning sound card, but I know the words: "If you want to be happy for the rest of your wife, never make a pretty woman your wife. So from a practical point of view, get an ugly girl to marry you."

I don't agree, by the way. Don't marry an "ugly girl," you will be inflicting your limited vision on her. Don't marry a woman if you cannot see her beauty. Rude. Very rude.

Look, if you love a beautiful woman, and if she loves you (don't forget that part), marry her. Just don't imagine that just because she's beautiful, you'll be happy. It doesn't work that way.