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.

[Zoloft]

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.

First World problems. Don't you have a thesis to write? An 'original contribution to knowledge' - correct?

Surely you have something more important to do than vaporize on these forums.

[SB_Johnny]

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.

Abd's been doing his wacko thing with afterburners on lately, for sure. Screaming about it on every available page on WV won't actually prevent that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

First World problems. Don't you have a thesis to write? An 'original contribution to knowledge' - correct?

Surely you have something more important to do than vaporize on these forums.

Ain't procrastination grand?

[Ottava]

First World problems. Don't you have a thesis to write? An 'original contribution to knowledge' - correct?

Surely you have something more important to do than vaporize on these forums.

If you are unable to post on topic, why post?

[Zoloft]

First World problems. Don't you have a thesis to write? An 'original contribution to knowledge' - correct?

Surely you have something more important to do than vaporize on these forums.

If you are unable to post on topic, why post?

If you can't say anything nice about anyone, why say anything at all?

Your turn.

[carbuncle]

Judging from the threads that appear here, Wikiversity appears to be somewhat of a magnet for people with, um, expansive personalities. What's SB Johnny doing there?

[SB_Johnny]

Judging from the threads that appear here, Wikiversity appears to be somewhat of a magnet for people with, um, expansive personalities. What's SB Johnny doing there?

Mostly just trying to keep the loonies from slobbering on the normal people.

[Zoloft]

Judging from the threads that appear here, Wikiversity appears to be somewhat of a magnet for people with, um, expansive personalities. What's SB Johnny doing there?

Mostly just trying to keep the loonies from slobbering on the normal people.

You're just trying real hard to be the shepherd.

[Vigilant]

First World problems. Don't you have a thesis to write? An 'original contribution to knowledge' - correct?

Surely you have something more important to do than vaporize on these forums.

If you are unable to post on topic, why post?

If you are unable to collaborate on a collaborative project, why participate?

[Ottava]

Judging from the threads that appear here, Wikiversity appears to be somewhat of a magnet for people with, um, expansive personalities. What's SB Johnny doing there?

Mostly just trying to keep the loonies from slobbering on the normal people.

Says the guy who spent 3 years harassing multiple editors there, was desysopped by Jimbo, desysopped again by the community, and who thinks "civil" conversation is either referring to an individual's real life associates in an intimidating manner or saying "You only think that because you haven't been laid lately".

You have no understanding of education. You have produced nothing but drama. You represent everything that Wikipedia Review was started to expose and get rid of.

[Zoloft]

Judging from the threads that appear here, Wikiversity appears to be somewhat of a magnet for people with, um, expansive personalities. What's SB Johnny doing there?

Mostly just trying to keep the loonies from slobbering on the normal people.

Says the guy who spent 3 years harassing multiple editors there, was desysopped by Jimbo, desysopped again by the community, and who thinks "civil" conversation is either referring to an individual's real life associates in an intimidating manner or saying "You only think that because you haven't been laid lately".

You have no understanding of education. You have produced nothing but drama. You represent everything that Wikipedia Review was started to expose and get rid of.

I like these two quotes from St Augustine:

"Do you wish to be great? Then begin by being. Do you desire to construct a vast and lofty fabric? Think first about the foundations of humility. The higher your structure is to be, the deeper must be its foundation."

"Hear the other side."

And yes, I believe I am on topic.

[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]

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

Ottava is really onto something here.

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

Fedosin is apparently a Russian physicist, with some original ideas. I'd assisted in preventing his pages on WV from being deleted by the Wikipediots. I.e., those who attempt to apply Wikipedia standards to Wikiversity. Ottava would largely be in that group, Ottava was really a frustrated Wikipedian, banned for his incivility, not for content reasons, he'd done some excellent work. So, for him, Wikiversity was desirable as a way to act out his Wikipedia fantasies. To stand for Good Content. Which, of course, requires making that decision. Wikiversity handles content disputes in a very different and highly inclusive manner. That is because even "poor content" can still have educational purpose and usage, and we don't kick a student out of our free university for writing a Bad Paper. In deletion discussions involving Fedosin articles, I saw people completely ignorant of physics criticizing them, calling "nonsense" what was just plain too complicated or too esoteric for them. We don't make those decisions, as a community, i.e., decide what's right or wrong or sensible or nonsense, deleting the latter, except in ways that are subject to high consensus.

(Few edits) 2 (August 20th),

Refugee from es.wikipedia, where, under a different user name, he'd violated guidelines and was seriously slapped down. He tells the story in my CC. He appeared because I suggested es.wikiversity or en.wikiversity, for what he'd wanted to do. He's not an academic, I think, but he knows one and that's the work he's presenting. It's solid, though his English is not great. It may not have been appropriate for es.wikipedia, but I did research it, and, whether it was appropriate or not, he had been abused, because he was just told that he was wrong, in an unfriendly way, he was not guided so that he could understand the guidelines, and he was clearly clueless. When I established rapport, I was able to explain his errors to him, he really did understand that the basic error was failing to seek consensus, insisting that he was "right."

[3 (August 17th).

White Fennec may be the same user who was blocked by me previously. This is about the article on Boubaker Polynomials, which had been deleted on various wikis in some rather weak grounds, boiling down to whether or not they are sufficiently notable. I became aware of the issue when a Popo Le Chien, claiming to be from fr.wikipedia, demanded that the article be deleted, with a racist comment. I investigated and found that there was a Popo le Chien, i.e., properly capitalized according to French usage, who was a French 'crat, and prominent there in opposition to ... Boubaker polynomials. But I strongly suspected that this was not him. And so I blocked the account, and filed a request at meta for a global lock, which was granted. Ottava made a Huge Fuss, thinking I'd been hasty. I was worried about the reputation of the real Popo le Chien, because if people read the work of a straw puppet like that, the impression might never be corrected. I was right. Or at least Popo le Chien did not want to take responsibility! (I think it really was not him). Had I been wrong, it would have easily been fixed. But it got stranger. A French user then claimed to be the real person with the name of the account that had created Boubaker Polynomials, that this was an "outing" account. I blocked the page creator and revision-deleted the traces, and suggested that the user, if they wanted to participate cooperatively, should register an account. White Fennec appeared, and took responsibility for the article. I do not know if White Fennec is the same user whom I blocked, and I don't care. What I do know is that the user is at Wikiversity to help with that resource, which is a legitimate one, clearly, hence we have a user who is there for educational content. I think, reading this, you might understand why, even though I blocked the user or a friend of the user, the user might support me. It's because I encouraged what was legitimate while prohibiting and stopping what was not. Ottava doesn't understand this. To him, people are either Good or they are Bad. To me, they are just people, and anyone can do something good and anyone can do something bad. Encourage the good, reward good behavior, and discourage what isn't good. I have raised five kids, they did well, and I have two more. I know what works and what doesn't work, and, briefly, blame and punishment don't work. Natural consequences and prevention of harm do work. Kids understand it and so do most adults.

(Some edits) 4 (August 18th),

Brick and mortar instructor, Howard Community College. Seriously active with serious use of Wikiversity for real-world academic use, an engineering course. Ottava is an idiot, and is simply demonstrating that he's clueless about how Wikiversity is actually being used. 1sfoerster is a newbie, and often edits logged-out. That will change, he's tractable and cooperative.

5 (August 23rd)

Refugee from Wikipedia. I hadn't noticed him much until he was attacked by S Larcia. S Larcia has now smelled the coffee and is very interested in Wikiversity, because he saw how my welcoming attitude caused Marshallsumter to be totally cooperative in terms of addressing the copyright concerns that had been brought from Wikipedia, whereas the Wikipedia attitude resulted in a big mess to be cleaned up without any help from the one who might have created it.

I find that really interesting.

It is. Except for 1sfoerster, these users represent a certain portion of my work, which involves inviting users banned elsewhere to contribute positively at Wikiveristy. They do. The result is less disruption elsewhere, something that completely escapes the Wikipediots, and their work at Wikiversity is either positive -- sometimes very positive -- or it's harmless. There are implications for the entire WMF.

[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:

[SB_Johnny]

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.

Have you two built your tree house yet?

[Abd]

This is long. Fascinating, of course ... to me. I think the future of the WMF is addressed here. YMMV.

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.

Have you two built your tree house yet?

You love it, SBJ.

Personally, I love that 90% thing.

He's right, but what he doesn't realize is that's true for everyone. This has been my steady diet since March, it's a basic Landmark "distinction." I'd guess it's more like 99% generally, but people, with some work, can reduce that number. I'd actually be lucky to get to 90%.

However, as to what he's referring to, I've listed 17 editors as inactive. Ottava finds one where my listing didn't make sense when examined. However, I'd written "considered by Abd." That is, I was aware that what I was doing was classifying and categorizing. That's what I wrote, and it was accurate. Stanistani was considered by me to be active. That this was an error, applying the standards I made up -- yup! I made them up -- doesn't actually change the truth of what I wrote. Unless, of course, Ottava is correct when he claims I'm lying, which he does. I.e., he claims that I *know*that what I'm saying is false, but I'm saying it anyway.

I don't know that about Ottava, that he's lying. But he's so utterly careless about the truth, and so frequently says what is totally preposterous, and so commonly doesn't notice that nearly everyone is saying this to him, that, for the ultimate effect, he might as well be lying. It would almost be good news that he is, because he could then more easily change. If he doesn't know, and until he knows that he doesn't know, there isn't much that he could do. Trust somebody, probably. Ottava, whom do you trust? I asked you that question, one time, I think, looking for someone who might mediate. You did not answer. Do you trust anyone?

However, here is something else I made up:

We do research to learn things. I'm doing research there on that Candidacy talk page. Does the opinion about my custodianship correlate with activity on Wikiversity? And it obviously does. This is, again, and interpretation, but it's a bit different from the kind of interpretation Ottava is doing. It can be answered quantitatively, given a measure of activity, that's now my operating hypothesis. I have not used a true objective measure, not yet.

I should. I want to assess whether or not the majority of Wikiversitans, those working on the project, want me present or gone, want me to be a custodian or not.

The latest Oppose is a custodian who had been removed, some time ago, from the Wikiversity Staff page, for lack of any activity in three months. He hasn't really been active since April. However, there were two edits May 7, and then 3 edits to his own user page on September 7. (Which will cause him to be added again to the Staff page, one edit or logged action anywhere is enough.)

Then the 19th comes, he !votes Oppose, then starts working on a topic, accounting.

No logged actions, still, since April 23. this is a custodian who is not paying any attention to the wiki, and clearly hasn't reviewed activity. If he did, he'd have been aware of my extensive work, of how much of the basic site maintenance I've been doing, and if any of it were harmful, he'd have opposed it, undone it, or remedied it in some way, and the Standard Stop Agreement allows him to actually stop. Me. There have been no actions under that agreement. He's voting based on old impressions and from what he sees on the CC page, he as much as states that. He thinks that discussion is some kind of problem.

n fact, this is better understood as the dying gasp of the old Wikiversity. And the new Wikiversity will prevail. That doesn't mean that I'll become a permanent custodian, because there is a consensus-increasing compromise, that will be revealed as accepted today (it's already been proposed). And even if I'm desysopped, which seems unlikely, the lines and issues will have become clear.

You can't stop the future from coming, try as you might. All you can do, if you try this, is frustrate yourself.

Am I making this up? The interpretation, yes. The facts, no. The facts dwell in consensual reality, mostly. But any individual fact, definitely I can err on, and those errors are heavily influenced by my "stories," by the interpretations that I assume are true. That's why the enterprise of science is so interesting. It's a technique for moving beyond those stories, and it takes rigor. Ottava is not a scientist, nor is SBJ. By training and inclination, I am.

And that's a story, too. He thinks the CC discussion is displaying a "level of angst." Maybe. Whose angst? Not the active core of Wikiversity! What he thinks a sign of my imbalance is something that makes sense to even non-Wikimedia people, once they understand the goals a bit. They get excited. The Wikiversity Assembly. He thinks that's a "quasi-governmental organization." Nope. It's not governmental, unless you want to use the output in a governmental system (which is, indeed, a major part of the concept, overall, long-term, after we know how to do it, after we know that the process works, assuming it does work. He hasn't had time to read the material, and to digest it, I'm sure.)

It's the very kind of knee-jerk wiki response that killed the neutrality of Wikipedia. It's what crushed Hope, ... er ... WP:Esperanza.

But it won't. Geoff does not understand the implications, nor does SBJ. They will. They will see it happen, if they stick around. The Assembly concept is designed to be bulletproof. No matter what they do, short of massive assassinations with real bullets, they can't stop it. The error of Esperanza was in not setting up a bulletproof structure. That's the real secret of delegable proxy, the network of explicit connections. It's not about voting, which is what was written by the proposer of WP:PRX on Wikipedia, when challenged. That didn't work on Wikipedia because nobody believed it was possible, so it never got going. (Nobody outside the proposer and me, basically).

On Wikipedia, in the MfD for WP:PRX, the voters said they were oppose because "we don't vote." They lie to themselves all the time, like that. When it was said that it didn't involve any change in how decisions were made, they ignored it. The same has now happened with a couple of people on Wikiversity. They read quickly, they decide they don't understand it and therefore they are opposed.

(of course they don't understand! They've never seen anything like it, as far as what they'd recognize. In fact, these techniques exist, they just aren't called anything in particular, other than, for parts of this, "deliberative process," or "Robert's Rules of Order" or the like, combined with actual practice in assemblies. Because most assemblies *do* control stuff beyond their own process, they assume that all assemblies must. It's quite ordinary thinking, which is great in its own way. It just won't move us out of stagnated positions. It's my job to set up demonstrations, so that people will be much better able to understand recognize it.)

Because the Wikiversity Assembly will not be making any decisions except the content of its own reports, which will only have the authority that people then give them, because the Assembly is designed to incorporate, in its ultimate full report, the explicit approval, opposition, or other view, directly or by clear and easy-to-follow reference, of every participant, including, as an aspect of that, indirect participation by "proxy estimation," the Assembly doesn't directly change the way that Wikiversity makes real decisions, except as any advice, if trusted, may affect the decisions of decision-makers.

That's the crazy idea that some are identifying as a -- totally irrelevant -- reason to oppose allowing me to keep a broom being used to sweep the place out. A custodian who sweeps out useful stuff from the office should be removed, and one who doesn't clean out the office at all is still giving value for the cost of his or her services (though there is still the question of the security risks of an extra set of keys being out there), but one who is proposing something with his or her free time, shouldn't be fired because of that. Imagine a firing of a real custodian at a real university because "Is a Republican, gives money to the Republican Party." Or "is a Socialist" or even "signed a petition by the American Nazi Party."

No, the question is the work. If the custodian represents himself or herself as signing that petition on behalf of the University, or otherwise brings the university into disrepute, that would be another matter. On Assembly matters, where I'm the default clerk at this point, as the "convenor" (that's standard process!), I would be under recusal requirements regarding tool use. It's like the chair of any meeting, they do not, as chair, pick up and personally toss an alleged offender out of a meeting, locking the door. No, that is done by an officer, elected for that purpose, and if this were a meeting on a campus, the campus police would be called. Even if the chair was a campus cop. At least that would be the case if the chair understands democratic process.

I do.

Ottava will claim that I've brought Wikiversity into disrepute. He'll allege a certain AN/I discussion as proof. Yes. But I'm enforcing Wikiversity policy, that should be obvious. I'm welcoming users banned elsewhere, as Ottava was himself welcomed, and allowed to continue. He seems to have forgotten that. Some Wikipedians, for some time, will continue to attack Wikiversity, just like people in the real world who depend upon an encyclopedia for their knowledge sometimes attack academia.

I'm going further, I'm inviting the banned, occasionally, and some are coming. The disruption caused, so far, has been entirely from outsiders, Wikipedians -- or Ottava -- attacking them. Not their work itself. It's about time this stops, but I'm not going to block these people, on any side, except for very specific offenses, ones recognized by the community as offensive. If this is an established Wikiversity user, or someone with a personal history with me, I'd likely not touch them myself, but I might request action at WV:RCA like any other user. I wouldn't ask if I didn't expect response, usually, and what I ask for -- again usually -- I get. People like Ottava don't notice that. SBJ might. Give him time.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Zoloft]

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.

Have you two built your tree house yet?

You love it, SBJ.

Personally, I love that 90% thing.

He's right, but what he doesn't realize is that's true for everyone. This has been my steady diet since March, it's a basic Landmark "distinction." I'd guess it's more like 99% generally, but people, with some work, can reduce that number. I'd actually be lucky to get to 90%.

However, as to what he's referring to, I've listed 17 editors as inactive. Ottava finds one where my listing didn't make sense when examined. However, I'd written "considered by Abd." That is, I was aware that what I was doing was classifying and categorizing. That's what I wrote, and it was accurate. Stanistani was considered by me to be active. That this was an error, applying the standards I made up -- yup! I made them up -- doesn't actually change what I wrote.

However, here is something else I made up:

We do research to learn things. I'm doing research there: does the opinion about my custodianship correlate with activity on Wikiversity? And it obviously does. This is, again, and interpretation, but it's a bit different from the kind of interpretation Ottava is doing. It can be answered quantitatively, given a measure of activity, that's now my operating hypothesis. I have not used a true objective measure, not yet.

The latest Oppose is a custodian who had been removed, some time ago, from the Wikiversity Staff page, for lack of *any activity* in three months. He hasn't really been active since April. However, the day before !voting, he bursts in with a pile of activity. However, there were two edits May 7, and then 3 edits to his own user page on September 7. (Which will cause him to be added again to the Staff page, one edit or logged action anywhere is enough.)

Then the 19th comes, he !votes Oppose, then starts working on a topic, accounting.

No logged actions, still, since April 23. this is a custodian who is not paying any attention to the wiki, and clearly hasn't reviewed activity. He's voting based on old impressions and from what he sees on the CC page, he as much as states that. He thinks that discussion is

Am I making this up? The interpretation, yes. The facts, no. The facts dwell in consensual reality, mostly. But any individual fact, definitely I can err on, and those errors are heavily influenced by my "stories." What I assume is true. That's why the enterprise of science is so interesting. It's a technique for moving beyond those stories, and it takes rigor. Ottava is not a scientist, nor is SBJ. By training, I am.

And that's a story, too. He thinks the CC discussion is displaying a "level of angst." Maybe. Whose angst? Not the active core of Wikiversity! What he thinks a sign of my imbalance is something that makes sense to even non-Wikimedia people, once they understand the goals a bit. The Wikiversity Assembly. He thinks that's a "quasi-governmental organization." Nope. It's not governmental, unless you want to use the output in a governmental system (which is, indeed, a major part of the concept, overall. He hasn't had time to read the material, and to digest it, I'm sure.

It's the very kind of knee-jerk wiki response that killed the neutrality of Wikipedia. It's what crushed Hope, ... er ... Esperanza.

But it won't. Geoff does not understand the implications, nor does SBJ. They will. They will see it happen, if they stick around. The Assembly concept is designed to be bulletproof. No matter what they do, short of massive assassinations with real bullets, they can't stop it. The error of Esperanza was in not setting up a bulletproof structure. That's the real secret of delegable proxy, the network of explicit connections. It's not about voting, which is what was written by the proposer of WP:PRX on Wikipedia, when challenged. That didn't work on Wikipedia because nobody believed it was possible, so it never got going. (Nobody outside the proposer and me, basically).

You know, I'd prefer Wikiversity as a place to create a learning resource if it had less drama. That is not generated solely by Ottava.

[thekohser]

You know, I'd prefer Wikiversity as a place to create a learning resource if it had less drama. That is not generated solely by Ottava.

Maybe I need to step back in there and restore some order?