QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 11th January 2011, 9:11pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 11th January 2011, 8:58pm)
This takes the cake even for Ottava.
You're clueless.
This is mild for Ottava?
I've been watching him for, what, about three years? Seems to me he's getting worse rapidly.
From one comment he made, I suspect he's drunk most of the time, when this stuff is happening. It would explain a lot.
I met Ottava when
Blechnic Â
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
managed to manipulate an apparent consensus at AN to topic-ban Wilhemina Will, a very productive teenage girl, from her favorite activity: DYK, by essentially lying to the community, and it's amazing how many Wikipedians will AGF someone who is claiming that someone else is thoroughly reprehensible. They didn't check the evidence, which either didn't exist, or was a single example of some error conflated into an entire pattern of activity. WW finds a page in the Sandbox, asks an admin about it, who says it's okay, and then creates the page in mainspace, and it turns out to be copyvio. This becomes "creates copyright violations," or stuff like that.
Ottava had been trying to defend WW and had gotten blocked for the effort. I took over, and, before it was done, I was myself blocked for allegedly harassing Fritzpoll. Long story. Fritzpoll later wrote me that it was all a misunderstanding, and became a good friend. GoRight took up the WW cause, reviewing her massive contributions for copyvio, finding none, and she was unbanned.
GoRight, a long-term nemesis of the Global Warming cabal, later got himself banned for trying to defend other users. Wikipedia has a way of doing that.
In any case, when Ottava was blocked, I went to his Talk page and consoled him. I was immediately attacked for this by a certain user, highly disruptive. It was that which caused me to investigate the underlying situation, leading me to find the process problems: a discussion which was never closed, but consensus was assumed without a closing admin, and Fritzpoll, who wasn't feeling too well at the time, had taken upon himself to convey the news to WW. The discussion at first glance appeared to be a consensus, but, in fact, several users had popped in and asked for evidence, which was never provided. Others had written "If what has been asserted is true, then ... she should be banned."
A closing admin would, in theory, review all this, check the evidence, etc. Didn't happen. Great example of Wikipedia process failure.
Blechnic completely disappeared when I confronted the situation. He'd previously been banned for harassing users. Nobody is minding the store, most of the time, on Wikipedia.
Wikiversity is a much smaller and much more highly cooperative community, usually. Ottava is quite an exception, and it's a shame.
Wikiversity, properly understood, has much less natural reason for conflict. Ottava was -- and still is -- trying to change that, to "clean it up" by getting rid of "nonsense" and "fringe science." In other words, make it more like ... Wikipedia.