This is long. Fascinating, of course ... to me. I think the future of the WMF is addressed here. YMMV.
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 19th September 2011, 3:17am)
QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 19th September 2011, 1:24am)
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: 
SB Johnny and Wikiversity
Ottava SB Johnny and Wikiversity 
