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?

[Ottava]

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.

This is Abd speak for - "He had crazy fringe ideas about science like me, and I gave him a platform to try and legitimize his crazy ideas".

So, for him, Wikiversity was desirable as a way to act out his Wikipedia fantasies. To stand for Good Content.

Yet I was on Wikiversity and an admin on Wikiversity long before I was ever banned. Over a year before. Funny.

Wikiversity handles content disputes in a very different and highly inclusive manner.

By that, Abd means that he allows for all the troll edits like this to stay, because this is clearly what Wikiversity is about: "My mother's name was Maryam who was born at Kraming, Khaplu Baltistan Pk. She was the second eldest of her eleven real sisters and one real brother. Her father's name was Isabaqdul who had three elder brothers namely Muhammad Jan, the eldest, Abdullah and Ali. When my mother was born, her eldest uncle Mr. Muhammad Jan decided to marry her to his second eldest son Hasan and the marriage was arranged accordingly in their mid teens. The marriage broke after birth of my sister who was a little bit disabled by birth. Mr. Hasan married another lady when his father passed away. My mother, a holy Qura'n learned lady was married to Mr. Muhammad Yar r/o Mikserpi, Khaplu, Baltistan after tallaaq and iddat... Innaa lillai wa innaa ilaihi! May Allah rest her soul in eternal peace.!"

The above was taken from this page which was previously in the mainspace. It doesn't belong anywhere on Wikiversity.

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.

Odd, because Abd indefs people without waring or notice. That doesn't seem like an attempt to redeem them.


The rest is equally insane, and there is only so much insanity one can stomach.

[Abd]

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?

Come on in, Greg, the water's fine. Be nice, now. I'd hate to have to blocka-you-ass. But, in fact, I know that you know how to cooperate, so I'd be surprised if I needed to even think of this. It's just that this is Wikipedia Review and I wanted to write "blocka you ass."

Gotta keep up standards, you know.

Wikiversity has been about as drama-free as could be imagined, for a month, until I was nominated and a certain Drama Queen came out. It's a bit distracting, site maintenance perhaps suffers a bit, but if you want to build educational resources, it should be fine. As you know, Greg, those who gravitate toward central process can be preferentially nutso, to use the technical term.

The Assembly is designed to defang them. It'll defang me too, by the way. The Assembly is designed to generate clear, concise, complete and fully neutral reports, using Wikiversity inclusiveness but centuries of experience as to how to do this. That's work, and wikis do not spontaneously do that. Even ArbComm never figured this out. The idea is, though, that it only takes a couple of people doing the work to effectively handle it for everyone. That's the Delegable Proxy trick.

[Abd]

Odd, because Abd indefs people without waring or notice. That doesn't seem like an attempt to redeem them.

Warning. Not waring or warring. Indeed, I do. Come to Wikiversity and with your first edit as a registered account, clearly vandalize a page, or insert a link to "Cheap Rolex Watches." If I notice it first, which is likely, you'll likely see an indef block. If I find that this is an SUL with good edits elsewhere, I might do something different. This is now, however, a WMF-wide practice, and if an account repeats this behavior cross-wiki, they get *locked* with no warning or notice, not even that there is a discussion taking place.

Warnings on Talk pages suppress later notice of the editor, so they actually complicate Recent Changes work, besides creating piles of pages that are essentially useless. If anything, we should tighten up a little bit on Welcoming. Standard practice now is to welcome simply for a test edit to the Sandbox, for example. Maybe. I'm continuing to do that, but the value is not clear. We should do an objective study. We should do objective studies about lots of things; for too long, the wikis operate on pure knee-jerk "thinking." That works, but it can also be quite misleading.

I've intervened in a couple of those global lock and block discussions, where I saw that there might be some redeeming value there. (Global block is roughly an equivalent for IP addresses, of a local block.)

I leave user Talk page access open, and the block message explains not only the reason why they were blocked, but also how to request unblock. This is the practical reality: the users whom I am indef blocking without warning and notice have, so far, never requested unblock. Why should they? This was a throwaway account. We are only talking about registered users, not IP.

I don't long-block IP addresses, unless I see persistent vandalism or inappropriate usage of Wikiversity combined with complete lack of response to suggestions (that's what it starts with) and warnings. I do warn instead of blocking whenever any account shows the slightest hopeful sign. Most IP vandalism, I don't even bother blocking, unless it's more than one problem edit.

Ottava's been repeating these claims, over and over, but he doesn't point to any specific examples. What he's doing is saying, "See! He's breaking the rules." Rules that he made up. What I'm doing is consistent with Wikiversity policy, and is clearly accepted by the community. Where are the reversed custodial actions? Where are the complaints on my Talk page? Ottava got his ass blocked by making piles of complaints without real evidence. He's completely bankrupt, but he's still pretending to be in charge, that His Opinion is the Empire's Opinion. Thus anything else is rebellion and corruption.

The rest is equally insane, and there is only so much insanity one can stomach.

That feeling in your stomach, Ottava, you really should see a professional about it. I've worked with some seriously crazy people, and one of the common traits: they think everyone else is crazy.

If I could stand in a room and speak to the Wikiversity community, this whole thing would have been over a long time ago. What I'm doing is only difficult with text. In person, the bandwidth is enormous. You'd get it, and quickly, unless you were practically brain-dead or drunk. In about one minute, two on a bad day, I can communicate what mountains of text can't.

Ottava was active as a custodian for a couple of years. He has under 4000 edits. I have over 7000 edits, rapidly growing, because real custodian work creates lots and lots of edits. Wikiversity is growing, it is becoming truly successful, and it's starting to self-organize. You'll all be able to see it within a year, I'm sure. I'm working not just to improve Wikiversity, but to make it spectacularly successful. Ultimately, the active site will be, by comparison, Wikiversity, Wikipedia will still be active, but will be what might be called a filtered mirror of Wikiversity. I.e., let's call it the Encyclopedic Best of Wikiversity. Single article per topic.

Wikiversity might have hundreds on a topic. From all points of view, with educational resources for people who actually want more than an encyclopedia, they want comprehensive knowledge. Wikiversity is to Wikipedia, ultimately, as a university, with its library and all its student work, is to an encyclopedia. Which one is ultimately most important. Does the tail wag the dog?

So, folks, if you gave up on Wikipedia, if you were blocked there, you are invited, by me, as a Wikiversity user who has this vision, to come and see what you can do on Wikiversity. It's not Wikipedia, for sure. Greg isn't blocked there, but he's not been a problem there, either. I'm banned on Wikipedia. Is that a problem? Sure, it's a problem. People bring it up. "He shouldn't be a custodian because he's banned on Wikipedia." They also say, those same people, "So and so should be blocked here because he's blocked on Wikipedia, which proves that he is a Bad Person."

And the Wikiversity community, consistently, rejects that argument.

By the way, we had a user show up, a Wikipedian, clearly a returning account, highly skilled, he'd shown up on Wikipedia and within a few days started an AN/I discussion that led to the banning of an editor without warning, with no prior block record and very extensive contributions. This new editor came to Wikiversity and asked that the user, who had started up at Wikiversity, be "stopped." He also immediately voted against my permanent custodianship. Bad news, eh? Disruption? Well, turns out the user actually reads stuff, and is able to see beyond his immediate opinions. Because my approach to Marshallsumter resulted in Marshall being totally cooperative, blanking some of his own pages to answer immediate copyright concerns, then working on the to insure compliance with copyright standards -- which can be a bit unclear -- this user realized that the process he'd started on Wikipedia was so great, after all, that the Wikiversity way was far more collaborative and far less disruptive. So he changed his position on my candidacy, he revised the research project he'd started, with a little fuss, to something far more neutral (and probably quite userful), and he accepted a suggestion that he work as a custodian at Wikiversity, and as soon as we can find an independent 'crat, he'll be a probationary custodian.

This would be completely impossible at Wikipedia. What, you have a past that you are not disclosing. No. Go Away, and you are lucky if we don't block you.

Ottava, of course, would have blocked this user, but, hey, he'd have warned him, perhaps, but if the user were not properly deferential, he'd have immediately blocked, he did this sometimes. He'd simply have driven him away, one way or another. And this was obviously a user who intended to build resources on Wikiversity, for what he considers original research. Ottava's belief is that the content is crap. I'll say this about it. It's actually interesting, he's doing something unusual, that's all. He's doing linguistic analysis. People are expecting something else, so they can't understand why he's putting up all these brief exact quotes. They are examples of usage. That's what a linguist would study! Ottava started a thread on Marshallsumter here.

Ottava is pretending that the treatment of blatant vandals and blatant linkspammers is somehow a problem. It isn't. There is almost complete consensus on what I've been doing. There is some variation in practice, that's all. A steward just blocked an account for a day. Draicone upped that to a week. I'd have made it indef, I think. All of us would allow Talk page access and appeal. None of us are arguing with each other. There is no conflict between Wikiversity and the steward community.

Some conflict might appear at some time, but we will work it out. That's because we now have an operating core that understands the wikis, the needs of the WMF, as well as our own unique mission as Wikiversity.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Ottava]

The Assembly is designed to defang them. It'll defang me too, by the way.

Except that you are in charge. And your arbitrary will and capricious nature rules it. Funny how that works. You sought me desysopped out of process for less than 1% of the behavior you've been exhibiting lately, and made it clear that you manipulate people and process in a desperate attempt to take over.

But why? You have no education background. You aren't an academic. You have no legitimate reason to be on Wikiversity. You should have been banned from there from day one.

Ottava, of course, would have blocked this user

I did extremely little blocking, and when I did block they were for short periods. There is a huge and obvious difference between our blocking.

And anyone can see that most of Abd's blocks have been in his ramping up activity until his administrator nomination.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[SB_Johnny]

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?

Come on in, Greg, the water's fine.

[SB_Johnny]

You sought me desysopped out of process for less than 1% of the behavior you've been exhibiting lately, and made it clear that you manipulate people and process in a desperate attempt to take over.

There's a 100% chance that you are grammatically incorrect about that, and about a 95% chance that you're otherwise incorrect (based on your past record of being correct), but I'm betting on the 5% when it comes to the theory of mind part.

[Abd]

I'd skipped to the end, but when I looked back, I saw that there are some matters of interest here, than can, for those interested, explain better what Wikiversity is about and what I'm up to.

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.

This is Abd speak for - "He had crazy fringe ideas about science like me, and I gave him a platform to try and legitimize his crazy ideas".

No. We are an educational institution, and we allow users, including experts like Fedosin -- and he is an expert -- to develop resources in relative peace and security. It takes expertise to review the work of an expert. It will ultimately happen, I'm sure, and if a Fedosin page is actually not supportable in the presence of expert opinion, it will become a subpage, ideally, with criticism explaining and exploring errors.

The existence of a page on Wikiversity does not "legitimize" any ideas. The existence of a page on Wikipedia doesn't even do that, though as Wikipedia actually starts to develop true peer review, which Wikiversity will help it to do, it might.

There are differences of opinion among experts. There is no one "expert position," very often. When someone comes to Wikiversity with truly out-there ideas, we have ways to accommodate them, and if they aren't interested in cooperation, they may end up blocked. It's unusual. Most people prefer to cooperate, give them a way to do it, they will. Try to exclude them, they may break the windows and climb in anyway. Better to channel their work. What I saw happening with Fedosin is that non-physicists were judging the work of a physicist, and determining that this was nonsense. Do understand that some physicists will call the work of other physicists "nonsense." They might even work at the same university.

It is about time to look again at Fedosin's work. I prefer this to be done by experts, who will advise the community. But we are short of those with the time to devote. Any experts interested? Hint: Ottava is completely unqualified. I've edited scientific work that has been published in a major journal. Ottava, and Wikipedia, and others who fancy themselves as "informed," have rejected this work as "fringe," but the peer reviewers at major journals don't agree. The contrary position has almost completely disappeared from mainstream journalsIt just goes to show.

Wikiversity handles content disputes in a very different and highly inclusive manner.

By that, Abd means that he allows for all the troll edits like this to stay, because this is clearly what Wikiversity is about: "My mother's name was Maryam who was born at Kraming, Khaplu Baltistan Pk. She was the second eldest of her eleven real sisters and one real brother. Her father's name was Isabaqdul who had three elder brothers namely Muhammad Jan, the eldest, Abdullah and Ali. When my mother was born, her eldest uncle Mr. Muhammad Jan decided to marry her to his second eldest son Hasan and the marriage was arranged accordingly in their mid teens. The marriage broke after birth of my sister who was a little bit disabled by birth. Mr. Hasan married another lady when his father passed away. My mother, a holy Qura'n learned lady was married to Mr. Muhammad Yar r/o Mikserpi, Khaplu, Baltistan after tallaaq and iddat... Innaa lillai wa innaa ilaihi! May Allah rest her soul in eternal peace.!"

The above was taken from this page which was previously in the mainspace. It doesn't belong anywhere on Wikiversity.[quote]Excellent example, I'm glad that Ottava chose it. It demonstrates that Ottava is essentially crazy, and probably should be banned from Wikiversity central structure. Fine if he writes about Shelley or whatever he actually knows about.

"Troll." This is apparently a Pakistani user. Definitely not a troll. That's his mother he wrote about. The fellow is entirely new to wikis or anything like it. I found an article on a very small town in Pakistan, in Wikiversity mainspace. So I moved it to his user space, and advised him that he was free to improve it there. He's not ready, as far as I see, to work on mainspace pages, and it might take him quite some time to get there. What he's learning on wikiversity is how to edit wikitext, how to write and express himself, and he's doing that, mostly, in his user space. He's monitored, and if he creates inappropriate pages in mainspace, they are almost immediately moved to his user space. He recently created a couple of pages in mainspace, and they were obviously user space type pages. I've asked him repeatedly to not create pages in mainspace, but my observation with highly unskilled users is that they will do it anyway. It takes repetition. Any educator knows that, and you don't improve the skills of these people by blaming and shaming and excluding them. Wikiversity is for educational resources, but part of this is fostering the actual process of education.

Ottava was also opposed to my work with a very young user, about 7 years old at first contact, according to the biography he wrote. But he writes fantasy. Originally, some of this was put into User:Abd/Playspace, but when he had a stable account -- that took some doing for a 7-year old! -- pages were moved into his user space, and he has almost entirely settled to only working on pages there. So he's learning writing, wikitext, and cooperation with a community, which is a big thing. This same user was considered a cross-wiki vandal, because what an even relatively clueful 7-year old writes is likely to be seen that way. The result of my welcome and support of him at Wikiversity has been the disappearance of such cross-wiki disruption, it appears. In other words, the openness of Wikiversity is preventing disruption elsewhere. This kid had discovered, already, when I found him, that when blocked, all he had to do was reboot his modem, and the block magically went away. Sitting on an elementary school IP. Great! His home IP, a major provider, floating IP, etc. Young. Has many years ahead of him where he's still young. Not intimidated. Now, you can engage and support someone like that, or you can try to exclude them. Exclude them, you are training them in how to avoid your exclusion. And that is exactly what they will do.

You can play a game of whack-a-mole, or you can start to wake up and deal with the real world, the way it is. "Bans" are largely a fantasy.

[SB_Johnny]

I'd skipped to the end

The irony! It burns!

[Ottava]

Abd, why is it that when you were encouraging Marshallsumter to post up copyvio that you also encouraged as class to commit it here en masse? Dozens of images related to that class had to be purged from Commons et al, and were obviously being used on Wikiversity if you were really checking edits. They were obviously inappropriately licensed to be used like that.

Does this have something to do with you getting a support from the recent user 1sfoerster? That you encourage users to act that way, ignore the problems, and then get their support? Instead of having the fortitude to telling them that they cannot do such a thing and warning them, thus possibly not getting them to be a supporter?

It is clear that your approach is self-serving and does not seek to better anything at the WMF.


Edit: Here is just a small example of the extent of the problem.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[SB_Johnny]

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

Zoloft, I really got a kick out of this and was really hoping that somebody would come up with a good riff about the tyranny of evil men, but I think maybe only you and I got the reference, so here it is for the kids:

[The Joy]

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?

Was there any order to begin with? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

Given a choice between Abd-crazy and Ottava-crazy, I'll take Abd-crazy. Abd's far more pleasant company, even if he does talk too much.

[Zoloft]

I would like for someone to post on my talk page how to create a learning resource. I've been poking around but don't see an 'Idiot's Guide: Creating a Learning Resource on Wikiversity.'

When I log on and start stacking my blocks I just see a bunch of people biting each other's necks.

It's discouraging, so I wander on over and vote down whatever looks asinine.

Then people mutter about me being 'inactive.'

Pish tosh I say. (My mother used to mutter that. She was from Southampton. I am from Texas, but still use it.)

[Ottava]

I would like for someone to post on my talk page how to create a learning resource. I've been poking around but don't see an 'Idiot's Guide: Creating a Learning Resource on Wikiversity.'

Course listings.

If you want to make something new, see if there is a school for it. If there is, look at what is offered and see what gaps there are.

Some people just build learning projects based on their own course lesson plans. Others upload their class lectures.

[Abd]

I would like for someone to post on my talk page how to create a learning resource. I've been poking around but don't see an 'Idiot's Guide: Creating a Learning Resource on Wikiversity.'

When I log on and start stacking my blocks I just see a bunch of people biting each other's necks.

That's not been the norm at all. Hasn't been happening for months. My permanent vote pulled the bugs out of the woodwork. Ottava came back to vote. Salmon of Doubt who hadn't edited since 2008 showed up, that was astonishing.

It's discouraging, so I wander on over and vote down whatever looks asinine.

Yeah.

Then people mutter about me being 'inactive.'

It may not be what it looks like. I needed, for my own information and maybe for that of others, to analyze the voting by activity, because it seemed to me there was a drastic difference. People really active with Wikiversity, who had been seeing my work, were far more in favor of what I was doing than those who were merely voting based on old grudges and fixed opinions. That's all. I classified you as active, not checking, just based on my impression. Which was mistaken. Ottava made a big flap about that here, but I corrected it on-wiki. Being inactive, if one is, is not a crime.

Welcome back, Zoloft. I didn't realize that this was you.

As to creating resources, you can create resources that are essays or collections of essays. You can do original research. There are some standards, but it's a pretty safe place if you are cooperative. Don't freak out if someone objects to something, we will work it out. Most of the time you can just do what you want. If you do something possibly problematic, it will come to my attention, probably. And my goal is to see that you can do whatever is legitimate about what you want to do. Liberally construed.

But I'll also protect the wiki against "cross-wiki disruption," which occasionally comes up....

Given a choice between Abd-crazy and Ottava-crazy, I'll take Abd-crazy. Abd's far more pleasant company, even if he does talk too much.

In person, you'd just say, "You're talking to much," and I'd say, "Right." And shut up and listen.

Thanks.

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

Was there any order to begin with? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

No. The order is being created. Some people don't like that.

As to the drama, the month of my probationary custodianship was pretty uneventful. yeah, there was some Stuff, but it was all quickly and efficiently handled.

[Ottava]

As to the drama, the month of my probationary custodianship was pretty uneventful. yeah, there was some Stuff, but it was all quickly and efficiently handled.

Oh yeah, "quickly and efficiently handled"..

Destroyed Wikiversity standards, imported major problems, and abused power.

[The Joy]

Say, Johnny, why don't you release JWSchmidt from his dungeon? Ottava, JWS, and Abd free to roam Wikiversity! Think of it! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Edit: Oh, and emesee. Don't forget him!

[Zoloft]

I would like for someone to post on my talk page how to create a learning resource. I've been poking around but don't see an 'Idiot's Guide: Creating a Learning Resource on Wikiversity.'

Course listings.
If you want to make something new, see if there is a school for it. If there is, look at what is offered and see what gaps there are.
Some people just build learning projects based on their own course lesson plans. Others upload their class lectures.

Well, I appreciate your trying to help me.

Edit: And Abd, thank you as well. see you wrote your post while I was writing mine.

There is this: How to Write an Educational Resource which is a bit limp but does shine a dim light on the subject. Is there anything better?

Perhaps my first project should be to gather advice on creating a learning resource and write an 'Idiot's Guide.'

Anyway, I did just create this collection based on the few references and sources I have found on my topic.

It's a toe in the water, anyway. Now to expand it, and then stick an outline up next, I think.

My apologies for straying off topic.

->Back to the topic

SB Johnny wants Wikiversity to succeed, but all the shenanigans I believe have dissipated that hope.

Why don't we all just leave each other alone, put down the jousting lances, and... create?

This post has been edited by Zoloft:

[SB_Johnny]

Say, Johnny, why don't you release JWSchmidt from his dungeon? Ottava, JWS, and Abd free to roam Wikiversity! Think of it! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Edit: Oh, and emesee. Don't forget him!

We'll need some pedos too, to round it all out. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

[thekohser]

There is this: How to Write an Educational Resource

Did you notice that the prolific editor who created most of that page decided to up and quit, expending his last edits on an Ottava mentorship issue? I wonder if it could be said that Ottava drove him off the project?

[Vigilant]

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.

In your case Jeffrey, the "haven't been laid recently" is undeniably true.

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.

Q: What does the English major say to the Computer Science major?

A: "Would you like fries with that, sir?"

[Ottava]

SB Johnny wants Wikiversity to succeed, but all the shenanigans I believe have dissipated that hope.

I find it odd how you think that. He hasn't actually worked on any resources in a long time, barely has any activity, and his only contributions has been to fuel drama especially in encouraging Abd's bad behavior.



thekohser

I wonder if it could be said that Ottava drove him off the project?

That is really low. McCormack was a good friend of mine.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[thekohser]

thekohser

I wonder if it could be said that Ottava drove him off the project?

That is really low. McCormack was a good friend of mine.

Oh, I didn't know that. Do you know why he disappeared from Wikiversity, then, without so much as a "So long, folks!"?

[Ottava]

thekohser

I wonder if it could be said that Ottava drove him off the project?

That is really low. McCormack was a good friend of mine.

Oh, I didn't know that. Do you know why he disappeared from Wikiversity, then, without so much as a "So long, folks!"?

Partly because of matters discussed here. (Number 8 "The student union" has a bit of vital background)


There are a lot of similar actions of JWS described there as another three letter name person.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Ottava]

Abd has been banned on Meta for disruption, and it is pointed out that one of Abd's supporters in his request for Custodianship was contradicting himself.

[The Joy]

Abd has been banned on Meta for disruption, and it is pointed out that one of Abd's supporters in his request for Custodianship was contradicting himself.

So, to summarize, Abd welcomed a new user without punishing the new user for making personal pages. You wanted Abd and the new user punished and, instead, Johnny punished you. Is this correct?

I'm not really seeing what the problem is. The new user's personal stuff was userfied and he has started contributing to WV. He's a bit philosophical, but over time with informal and maybe formal mentorship, he could be a benefit to the project. I'm guessing this is him here, here, and here? Maybe he could work on Islam-related or chemical stuff?

Why didn't you just patiently and politely work with him and help him understand WV's goals and projects, as well as, what he can and cannot do on WV? This could have been dealt with better. I'm surprised he didn't run for the hills.

[Sxeptomaniac]

Abd has been banned on Meta for disruption, and it is pointed out that one of Abd's supporters in his request for Custodianship was contradicting himself.

So, to summarize, Abd welcomed a new user without punishing the new user for making personal pages. You wanted Abd and the new user punished and, instead, Johnny punished you. Is this correct?

I'm not really seeing what the problem is. The new user's personal stuff was userfied and he has started contributing to WV. He's a bit philosophical, but over time with informal and maybe formal mentorship, he could be a benefit to the project. I'm guessing this is him here, here, and here? Maybe he could work on Islam-related or chemical stuff?

Why didn't you just patiently and politely work with him and help him understand WV's goals and projects, as well as, what he can and cannot do on WV? This could have been dealt with better. I'm surprised he didn't run for the hills.

"This could have been dealt with better." I'm waiting for the day I see Ottava's actions on WP/WV/WR/anything, and don't think that about him. Ottava is a case study in how to do everything for maximum PITA and minimum effect. I think even Giano has a better effectiveness-to-drama ratio.

This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac:

[Ottava]

Abd has been banned on Meta for disruption, and it is pointed out that one of Abd's supporters in his request for Custodianship was contradicting himself.

So, to summarize, Abd welcomed a new user without punishing the new user for making personal pages. You wanted Abd and the new user punished and, instead, Johnny punished you. Is this correct?

I'm not really seeing what the problem is. The new user's personal stuff was userfied and he has started contributing to WV. He's a bit philosophical, but over time with informal and maybe formal mentorship, he could be a benefit to the project. I'm guessing this is him here, here, and here? Maybe he could work on Islam-related or chemical stuff?

Why didn't you just patiently and politely work with him and help him understand WV's goals and projects, as well as, what he can and cannot do on WV? This could have been dealt with better. I'm surprised he didn't run for the hills.

I never asked for him to be punished.

You don't "welcome" people by encouraging their disruption by posting nonsense like that by moving it to his user subpages. However, Abd was doing just that. This is just like him encouraging Marshallsumter. to continue his copyvio and other problematic behavior on Wikiversity.

It was very clear that the user kept up the behavior for over a month and didn't care about Wikiversity standards. I'm obviously not the only one who is tired of him making these pages. There are a lot of bad pages.

You can see here that Abd has been encouraging some of the weirdest nonsense in addition to a user who was blatantly copyvio and the stealing of screen shots from a video game from another group of users. All things Abd never told people they couldn't do because he didn't want to upset them.



Now, The Joy, Abd has indeffed banned many editors without a block notice, warning, or the rest. That contradicts directly what you are claiming above.

[Michaeldsuarez]

Abd has been banned on Meta for disruption, and it is pointed out that one of Abd's supporters in his request for Custodianship was contradicting himself.

http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?titl...58&oldid=781951

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...1&oldid=2916342

The contradiction has been resolved.

[SB_Johnny]

SB Johnny wants Wikiversity to succeed, but all the shenanigans I believe have dissipated that hope.

I find it odd how you think that. He hasn't actually worked on any resources in a long time, barely has any activity, and his only contributions has been to fuel drama especially in encouraging Abd's bad behavior.

Good gravy. I doubt anyone but you would think I'm encouraging him. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

I don't work on resources because I'm frankly too busy, and the part of my time I have to devote to WV is mostly taken up by carefully considering the sense of the meeting.

It's not what you or I wanted, but the difference between you and me (well, one of many) is that I can close a discussion in a sane manner, while you couldn't.

No worries, Ottava... I only blocked you for a week, to let the grups talk. You'll be allowed to go back to slobbery rants soon enough. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

This post has been edited by SB_Johnny:

[The Joy]

Abd has been banned on Meta for disruption, and it is pointed out that one of Abd's supporters in his request for Custodianship was contradicting himself.

So, to summarize, Abd welcomed a new user without punishing the new user for making personal pages. You wanted Abd and the new user punished and, instead, Johnny punished you. Is this correct?

I'm not really seeing what the problem is. The new user's personal stuff was userfied and he has started contributing to WV. He's a bit philosophical, but over time with informal and maybe formal mentorship, he could be a benefit to the project. I'm guessing this is him here, here, and here? Maybe he could work on Islam-related or chemical stuff?

Why didn't you just patiently and politely work with him and help him understand WV's goals and projects, as well as, what he can and cannot do on WV? This could have been dealt with better. I'm surprised he didn't run for the hills.

I never asked for him to be punished.

You don't "welcome" people by encouraging their disruption by posting nonsense like that by moving it to his user subpages. However, Abd was doing just that. This is just like him encouraging Marshallsumter. to continue his copyvio and other problematic behavior on Wikiversity.

It was very clear that the user kept up the behavior for over a month and didn't care about Wikiversity standards. I'm obviously not the only one who is tired of him making these pages. There are a lot of bad pages.

You can see here that Abd has been encouraging some of the weirdest nonsense in addition to a user who was blatantly copyvio and the stealing of screen shots from a video game from another group of users. All things Abd never told people they couldn't do because he didn't want to upset them.



Now, The Joy, Abd has indeffed banned many editors without a block notice, warning, or the rest. That contradicts directly what you are claiming above.

Well, this fellow responded nicely to the new user and offered assistance. Why can't you be more like S. Larctia? I don't see a "Warning" message as a very welcoming thing to say and it seemed rather threatening to me. It can take more than a month to understand all the ends and outs of a project like WV, particularly when it appears to be run by the inmates of Arkham Asylum.

I just don't see what Abd did that was so beyond the pale? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[Ottava]

Well, this fellow responded nicely to the new user and offered assistance. Why can't you be more like S. Larctia? I don't see a "Warning" message as a very welcoming thing to say and it seemed rather threatening to me. It can take more than a month to understand all the ends and outs of a project like WV, particularly when it appears to be run by the inmates of Arkham Asylum.

I just don't see what Abd did that was so beyond the pale? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

You said nicely. I see "it was essentially a poor quality summary of the Wikipedia article on that topic " which could be construed as insulting. Warning someone about what can or cannot be posted isn't mean.

Furthermore, the user was here for a month. Instead of being "nice", he should have been confronted with the possibility of blocks if he continued. Instead of encouraging him by moving things to subspace when they clearly don't belong, they should have been deleted.

Wikiversity is for creating learning resources. Abd has instead encouraged those who are actively trying to disrupt other Wikis.

All of Abd's actions can be seen in two ways: fluffy and trying to get as many people to be on his side by ignoring their problems, or malicious in purposefully aiding those like Abigor, Marshall, etc, to further what Salmon of Doubt mentioned as the closing of Wikiversity (or what some here would want, an attack on Wikipedia). Either way, he has nothing to do with what the mission was originally about and encourages those who have no connection to it.


And SB Johnny, we both know that your block was bs, as well as most Stewards and other people. Your harassing messages name dropping people I know and the rest shows that you exhibit all the nasty characteristics that WR hates in Wikipedia admin.



And The Joy, I have nothing in common with Abd. I don't promote fringe stuff. My ban has very little in similarity to what happened, and that indef block on Meta wont last long. When I go to meetups, people love to spend time with me. When Abd tries to go to a Wiki event people want to call the cops. Many people have been utterly creeped out by his behavior.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[The Joy]

And Ottava, why are you grave-dancing on Abd when you yourself are banned from Meta and multiple WMF wikis? Shouldn't the WV community be just as concerned about you as they are Abd? You are both exiles and WV is one of the few places left for the both of you. You both have a lot in common. It's so strange that you both are so antagonistic towards each other.

[The Joy]

And The Joy, I have nothing in common with Abd. I don't promote fringe stuff. My ban has very little in similarity to what happened, and that indef block on Meta wont last long. When I go to meetups, people love to spend time with me. When Abd tries to go to a Wiki event people want to call the cops. Many people have been utterly creeped out by his behavior.

That's a very cruel and libelous thing to say, Ottava. I can understand your frustration (to a certain degree), but have you honestly listened to yourself? Good gravy, man, you write articles about being a better Christian and you say things like this? What is wrong with you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

[Ottava]

And The Joy, I have nothing in common with Abd. I don't promote fringe stuff. My ban has very little in similarity to what happened, and that indef block on Meta wont last long. When I go to meetups, people love to spend time with me. When Abd tries to go to a Wiki event people want to call the cops. Many people have been utterly creeped out by his behavior.

That's a very cruel and libelous thing to say, Ottava. I can understand your frustration (to a certain degree), but have you honestly listened to yourself? Good gravy, man, you write articles about being a better Christian and you say things like this? What is wrong with you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

Um, you must not understand what "libelous" means. It is 100% true with the testimony of 2 females who were involved in the incident. It is rather well known among WMF regulars. I believe it was even mentioned here back in 2009/10ish.

And it isn't non-Christian to mention a fact about another in which they are utterly creepy in a manner that has provenly made women really bothered and upset.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[EricBarbour]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif)

[The Joy]

Well, I'm done. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif)

[Abd]

Abd has been banned on Meta for disruption, and it is pointed out that one of Abd's supporters in his request for Custodianship was contradicting himself.

http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?titl...58&oldid=781951

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...1&oldid=2916342

The contradiction has been resolved.

yeah, I hadn't seen that meta discussion. They don't tell people on meta when they are heating up the pot to boil them in. However, some good may come out of that meta mess. Remember what happened when William M. Connolley decided to ban me from Cold fusion?

I was astonished by Marco Aurilio's claims. He'd said some stuff like that, about me, in summary, in on the meta admin request page, and I'd asked him on his Talk what he was talking about. He said, "You know." I said, "No, I don't. ..."

So he went to the request page and "explained it" with a massive screed. Uh, why not tell me a little on his Talk page and we could discuss it.

I haven't looked at all his evidence, I just looked at the first diff. It completely fails to show what he claims and, in fact, shows the opposite. If he's not just lying, it shows that he literally doesn't understand English, at least not well. A steward.

I looked at who voted in that discussion, that they never bothered to tell me about, and it was the people who have been creating a huge mess at meta, largely, plus Courcelles, who voted for an infinite block on meta, his grounds: "I closed the ban on Wikipedia."

People who, when you oppose them on something, never forget it.

So maybe this will pop the blister. What these guys would do to me, they would do to many others.

I'm not going to do anything for a few days. Real life, you know.

meanwhile, I'm staying on as a custodian at Wikiversity. Ottava et al failed, all they did was cause this to be continued probationary custodianship in stead of "permanent" custodianship. Thanks to SBJ for proposing a compromise close. It is actually exactly what I'd have gone for if I'd thought it might be accepted, because I knew that those trolls would crawl out of the woodwork. "Permanent" does not come with any tools that allow me to actually serve the community any better.

Guido den Broeder said that, because of this, he'd stay retired and would vote for the closure of Wikiversity.

We are sooooo distressed.

But I won't hold him to his promise. He lies anyway.

[Abd]

And The Joy, I have nothing in common with Abd. I don't promote fringe stuff. My ban has very little in similarity to what happened, and that indef block on Meta wont last long. When I go to meetups, people love to spend time with me. When Abd tries to go to a Wiki event people want to call the cops. Many people have been utterly creeped out by his behavior.

That's a very cruel and libelous thing to say, Ottava. I can understand your frustration (to a certain degree), but have you honestly listened to yourself? Good gravy, man, you write articles about being a better Christian and you say things like this? What is wrong with you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

Um, you must not understand what "libelous" means. It is 100% true with the testimony of 2 females who were involved in the incident. It is rather well known among WMF regulars. I believe it was even mentioned here back in 2009/10ish.

And it isn't non-Christian to mention a fact about another in which they are utterly creepy in a manner that has provenly made women really bothered and upset.

Uh, what in the world is Ottava talking about? I've gone to only one wiki event, in New York, in 2010. 2 females involved in what incident?

Maybe I was drunk and don't remember. Problem is, I don't drink.

Ottava, this actually is libel. We do know where you live, or could find out. Not that I suspect you are worth suing, or even wasting the time of a lawyer to ask about suing.

By the way, I've been through 2 CORI investigations, because I adopted kids. Ottava, you are insane. I recommend that you think about what you are talking about and put up some evidence, or continue to demonstrate that you are a complete idiot.

I just don't see what Abd did that was so beyond the pale? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

When Ottava was Mr. Wikiversity, I blocked him for two hours for incivility (later confirmed by Jtneill as within proper discretion).

Lese majeste. Utterly unforgivable. After all, he was my mentor.

[SB_Johnny]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif)

It's almost a shame that Jimmy and the WMF cronies didn't pay more attention to WV, because it's going to be hard to blame its collapse on them. Unless of course their not paying attention was the root of the problem. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)