SB Johnny and Wikiversity Options

[Ottava]

So SB Johnny decided to block me for one week on Wikiversity just because. Wonderful stuff. He claimed I was being disruptive for complaining that Abd was pretending to check recent changes while not actually doing that.

If you haven't noticed, Abd has been selectively welcoming people who are disruptive and they all happened to vote in support of him. They also say he has been doing a good job at recent changes.

Anyone can see from my contrbs that I had to go through and fix a lot. It isn't a coincidence. SB Johnny claims I have done nothing since coming back, but that is pure bs. I love how Wikiversity is making Wikipedia look far better in terms of logical practices.

[Ottava]

Ever just wonder how Abd is just blatantly making things up?

Case in point, this list.

Active vs inactive.

Abd says this user is active: StaniStani.

1. # 04:08, 13 September 2011
2. 07:32, 15 September 2011

Previous edit: 23:47, 9 May 2011


I'm in the "inactive" even though 5 edits the day before he was nominated and 11 total if you include September and August.


Then there are a surprising amount of "new" editors who appear in August.

(Returned in August) 1 (Aug 29th),

(Few edits) 2 (August 20th), 3 (August 17th)

(Some edits) 4 (August 18th), 5 (August 23rd)


I find that really interesting.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Abd]

Ever just wonder how Abd is just blatantly making things up?

Case in point, this list.

Active vs inactive.

Abd says this user is active: StaniStani.

1. # 04:08, 13 September 2011
2. 07:32, 15 September 2011

Previous edit: 23:47, 9 May 2011


I'm in the "inactive" even though 5 edits the day before he was nominated and 11 total if you include September and August.

I don't know why I categorized Stanistani as active. That was an error. Thanks, Ottava, for pointing it out.

However, this is typical Ottava. One error becomes "just blatantly making things up." That's how his mind works, diligently digging for anything that might look like mud to toss. And it's all really About Ottava. He was the Ottavan Emperor at Wikiversity, and I popped his bubble, and damned if he's going to let that go, until he's totally banned, it's looking like. You really have to work hard to get banned at Wikiversity. He might manage it. More likely he'll just be indef blocked, as is the case at meta now.

My classification of editors as active represented a judgment that they were recently active, i.e,. would presumably have been aware of my actual custodial work, and inactive was intended to describe editors who were only showing up to oppose (or to support), but who were not using Wikiversity -- recently -- for work with educational resources, which would, then, likely only represent prior opinion, not based on my actual work. I could make a case that this would include SBJ, but I didn't go there, and don't intend to.

It's obviously the case for Ottava. He knew, I'd assume, that the CC would be coming up for vote, and so he did five welcomes, a drop in the bucket, the day before.

His only edits before that were an obvious result of watching my administrative actions, looking for mistakes to shout about. Completely off, he was, about this Popo Le Chien. I'd done exactly the right thing, and promptly, the result being that the user about whom Ottava was claiming -- and continues to claim -- that I'd improperly blocked, ended up thanking me. Ottava seems to have no ability to revise his own opinions.

Serious shortcoming for anyone. It will ruin his life, if he doesn't find a way to transform that.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Ottava]

I don't know why I categorized Stanistani as active.

It was quite obvious why - you thought people were dumb enough to not actually look deeper than taking your word for it. The supporters of yours are all those without any background or experience with you. It is because they believe the deception.

You are a fraud.

It's obviously the case for Ottava. He knew, I'd assume, that the CC would be coming up for vote, and so he did five welcomes, a drop in the bucket, the day before.

What bs.

You were all over ANI. and that is why I came over. You were being utterly inappropriate and embarrassing, and when you realized that there was sudden attention on you, you probably rushed to your Custodianship candidacy in hopes that you could somehow disqualify people.

It is very obvious that I was poking around since August.

I also love how you think that I could magically predict your custodianship nomination, which was already over due. Funny how that works out.

I'd done exactly the right thing, and promptly, the result being that the user about whom Ottava was claiming

Not even close. You never asked to see if it was him. -I- had to do the right thing by mentioning that, and it was pointed out by others that you jumped without looking. See Abd, you make things up. 90% of what you "see" is in your own head. You assume things about other people. It is because you are crazy.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Abd]

It is because you are crazy.

OMG, thanks. If not for your diligent repetition of this message, like, what, about 167 times, I'd never have realized it. I will immediately seek professional help. Most of all, though, I promise to stop reading your stuff, and get some sleep. Like now.

In any case, I now know the source for Ottava's perspicacity. He diligently reads WP:ANI, as he linked, even though he's banned from Wikipedia. He gets his deep knowledge of the world from that August source, or September source, as this case was.

Ottava, if you want to Stay Smart, keep reading AN/I, it's a veritable Fount of Wisdom, where True Guidance can be found, every day, on How to Run a Wiki. I'm sure that everyone here will agree. What would we and Wikipedia do without AN/I? Without AN/I, Wikipedia Review would hardly have a leg to stand on, or a pot to piss in, or something like that, perhaps involving a leg and some piss. Check your diaper.

This post has been edited by Abd: