SB Johnny and Wikiversity Options

[Ottava]

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

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

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

[Ottava]

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.

[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.

[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.