QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 18th September 2011, 11:17pm)
Then there are a surprising amount of "new" editors who appear in August.
Ottava is really onto something here.
QUOTE
(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.
QUOTE
(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."
QUOTE
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.
QUOTE
(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.
QUOTE
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.
QUOTE
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.
SB Johnny and Wikiversity
Ottava SB Johnny and Wikiversity 
