Jump to content

Requests for comment/SB Johnny

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. There has been no activity at this RfC since July of 2011, and seeing as there has been no consensus established this is closed as inactive. It is recommened that this matter be handled locally on the Wiki in question.

RFC statement


This is an RfC on Wikiversity Bureaucrat SB Johnny, owner of a competing "educational" wiki and prolific member of WR that uses Wikipedia user's real names without permission and uses WR as a way to make nasty attacks on others.

The current situation is that SB Johnny is claiming a loophole in Wikiversity policy to grant User Abd administrator rights against community consensus. This discussion shows that there is strong community response against Abd being allowed mentorship or administrator rights. Bureaucrat Jtneill admits "am concerned, however, by the community concern above".

He was granted administrator rights anyway in what can be seen as a constant loop hole, if SB Johnny is correct, that allows him to keep giving rights to individuals even if the community says no. An attempt was made to make a blatant addition to policy to not allow this, which was closed by SB Johnny claiming that it wasn't acceptable. After pointing out that he cannot just close RfCs, Abd then re-closed it. Notice that no other RfC was archived, nor are archives used in such a way in discussions on policy pages. Voting on policies is standard, as there are three other RfCs opened immediately for other proposals.

The problem goes back further: SB Johnny has Bureaucrat and Administrator rights without community consensus. A project like Wikipedia allows for a person who gives up their rights to request from Bureaucrats. This is a policy allowed action. There is no policy on Wikiversity that allows for such, as all Bureaucrat actions require a vote first. On 23:40, 11 August 2010 he was given the rights by mostly inactive Bureaucrat Mu301. There was no discussion.

SB Johnny originally lost rights when he attempted to wheel war with Jimbo Wales in an effort to create drama. SB Johnny had no support in his action, and he had a long history up to that point of using administrator rights to cause drama on Wikiversity. This caused a review here when Mikeu made another Bureaucrat decision without respecting community consensus. As you can see, Jimbo said he would regrant SB Johnny the administrator rights back if he promised to not act in the way he did. As soon as they were regranted, SB Johnny "quit", gave up the rights, and broke the original promise. His quit statement is here.

The pattern is long term, as SB Johnny requested the termination of JWSchmidt's ops on Meta without any community discussion. It was granted for reasons unknown, even though Stewards must have an actual discussion on the matter, which there was none. The link he posts can be found here. In essence, he says the opinion of 4 people in private without any community say has the right to remove other users from power.

It is clear that SB Johnny has no respect for community discussion, community process, and will add people to Custodianship or remove people from Custodianship without any respect to the community's feelings. He has admitted to mass emailing users to stack discussions and uses WR as a platform to push his views. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1: Close mentorship loophole


Adopt the addition of this proposal for Wikiversity policy to conform to WMF standards regarding respecting community consensus when it comes to adminship.

Reason: Adminship is based on community consensus. Mentorship was started at Wikiversity to teach adminship. However, the process was not intended to remove the primary standard of all WMF projects: consensus rules everything. Right now, a loophole is being claimed that would allow Abd to have permanent adminship via Bureaucratic determination. It would only take one Bureaucrat who says that he is "mentoring" an individual to give that admin 4 weeks of adminship. If that user fails a vote at the end, the same Bureaucrat can declare a new 4 weeks. This loophole would allow Bureaucrats to create admin without any need for the community's will to be respected. There are too few people to effectively remove Bureaucrats who ignore the community, as it only takes a solid group of 5 or 6 people to effectively stop any proposal on Wikiversity. Proposal cannot take place on Wikiversity because of SB Johnny and Abd closing any proposal with reasons that contradict common practice on Wikiversity. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. As proposer. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Supporting. Gentlemen, to be rational for a moment, ask yourself if the current policy is in fact creating a very wide power gap that others can exploit. One might consul themselves that this situation was a one time abuse, but the fact of the matter is that there is an opening which others, if not the parties mentioned here, can abuse later on. If a situation arose where a person was exploiting the system to an end which you do not agree with, then you've only yourselves to blame for not sealing that person's actions now instead of later. The policy is merely a tool, and like any tool, it can be misused if not well designed. Please consider this proposal carefully. --Lygris 15:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think meta can change local policy in this way. NonvocalScream 19:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has happened before to ensure that tiny projects are not abused. Community consensus is a global policy, so this would be enforcing the global policy. Local discussion to pass the policy was prevented by those involved and who benefit from it. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The previous RfC, Requests for comment/Minimum voting requirements, shows that Meta RfC can deal with policies that affect local projects, including ensuring that consensus is respected at local projects. That RfC is about determining minimums needed before privileges are adopted. This is just a proposal to ensure that consensus is necessary in any form. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That RfC is about local projects without 'crats, specifically, and presumably with no established local policy. These were proposed minimum standards for stewards to follow. Stewards don't generally do the work of local 'crats if they exist. Local discussion of Ottava's proposed change, which was just opened yesterday, was not "prevented," and it remains open for discussion. --Abd 22:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is about all projects. As I point out below, it was started because of -me- and my concern. Kylu set up the RfC. It was my RfC that Kylu was kind enough to organize because I couldn't think of wording for proposals. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What?? Requests for comment/Minimum voting requirements is about actions by stewards and global sysops, which are obviously discussed on Meta; this is a completely different RfC. --Nemo 22:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. It is for establishing global requirements for a minimum number of votes for someone to gain cratship and similar things. It was started based on -my- concerns found here. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a discussion at meta to modify wikiversity process on custodianship is out of process. This section should be immediately closed. For those who are interested in this policy discussion see the page that Ottava created v:Wikiversity:Probationary custodians locally, which is the appropriate place for this dialogue to occur. --mikeu talk 15:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2: Desysop User:SB Johnny


Immediately desysop User:SB Johnny.

Reason: User SB Johnny has not been approved by community discussion for Custodianship or Bureaucratship preceding 23:40, 11 August 2010 when he was granted such by Mu301. As such, his status as such is in direction violation of Wikiversity policies and Wikimedia standards. His ignoring of community consensus, using admin bits only to wage war on others, his outing of users at Wikipedia Review, and inappropriate behavior are examples of abuse that is caused by this avoiding of community consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. As proposer. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nominator. Diego Grez return fire 17:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]





Inappropriate RfC here. The only alleged misbehavior mentioned that, if timely, could be relevant for meta review is from 2008, where SB Johnny carried water for an agreement of four 'crats (including himself) to ask for emergency desysop, at [1], pointing to an announcement at [2]. (discussion continued at [3]). This would only have been appropriate as an emergency request, and SBJ would have been roundly trout-slapped if he'd misrepresented the situation and the approval of the other 'crats. A desysopping, even if in error, is easily reversed by any 'crat, and the lack of that is a demonstration of such local 'crat consensus.

Ottava attempts to bypass clear Wikiversity policy and guidelines, and consensus, demonstrating the tenacious and tendentious argument he's famous for, straying into incivility, which recently led to loss of sysop privileges on Wikiversity, and he's blaming everyone else instead of looking in the mirror. See Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima, and removal of Ottava sysop status, with tendentious and moot argument.

His misrepresentations of local policy, contradicting the clear text and intention of the policy, to assert what he wants, and at least another blatant example can be shown, is disruptive here. [4] was promptly and properly rejected. But argument continues there, as before, where it is completely moot. --Abd 17:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steward Kylu made it clear that a Meta RfC was necessary. Meta RfCs allow for discussions that cannot take place on smaller projects because of abuse. Abd has a long history of blatantly making things up, ignoring community consensus, and aiding SB Johnny's disruption. His claims about Cold Fusion on WR have been debunked by actual scholars and community consensus sided with the guy Abd tried to attack as part of a vendetta. There are many other problems related to this user, and his being granted adminship by SB Johnny's fiat is a major problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, the RfC on me amounted to nothing and died as it was baseless. The desysopping of me clearly shows an ignoring of community consensus, and had mass canvassing by Abd, especially in his inflammatory comments on Wikipedia Review and his posting on user's talk pages to get revenge votes. There was unanimous consensus to stop the process because of abuse, yet it was closed as a desysop on day three when policy calls for at least 7 days. Abd's obfuscating on this topic shows that he is unable to objectively look at situations and replaces his own fantasy for reality. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
w:Q.E.D. --Abd 18:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note about Wikiversity custodianship --Abd 19:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiversity has a very open probationary adminship process, very much not broken. Any user may request it, and [wv:Wikiversity:Custodianship]] clearly outlines the procedure. Becoming a probationary custodian requires no discussion, though the process is open to comment. Rather, if a mentor, already a custodian, agrees, the policy states that "you will be approved." Because it takes a 'crat to assign the bit, there is, in fact, a safeguard against possible abuse. In the present case, Jtneill, a WV 'crat also, offered to nominate and mentor me, and when I, accordingly, opened the candidacy page, after a delay while I was travelling, Ottava and several others piled in with complaints, including this "guy" from Wikipedia who had no prior participation on Wikiversity. I had not noticed that Jtneill was on wikibreak. When I did, I withdrew the candidacy to avoid useless discussion. Then when Jtneill returned, we discussed what to do. Jtneill confirmed his willingness, the candidacy was re-opened, and SBJ followed routine procedure. Had there been a strong reason to not follow the policy, SBJ could have stopped it. His personal opinion was that I wasn't "ready." But he followed policy. And he is now being attacked for it. --Abd 19:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On one side of the issue: Abd applied for a second mentorship. Multiple people brought up concerns. Jtneill acknowledges the concerns: "I am concerned, however, by the community concern above". By definition, a Custodian must be a trusted user. Additionally, the notes on Custodianship show that it is 1. not a right and 2. "the position is not suited for everyone". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the other side of the issue: Custodianship grants a mentorship process. If a user is terminated before his 4 week mentorship period ends, he is allowed to get a new mentorship. If a user fails a vote, he is allowed to request a later mentorship. No where does it say that a user who is not recommended for full custodianship is allowed a new mentorship, as he was not terminated before the period or allowed to go through an official vote. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The intention and language of the policy are clear. Behind Ottava's interptetation, ee was my first mentor, for more than a month with no problems. Then I saw him being grossly uncivil. I warned him. He blew it off, so I blocked him for two hours and immediately took it to the community. He went to meta and claimed that my probationary period had expired, misrepresenting the situation and policy, which clearly allowed for a mentor to withdraw support the candidacy, and a 48-hour period to obtain a replacement mentor before a removal request at meta. A steward flipped the bit. (Properly, because stewards are not expected to research every detail, and if there is an error, any 'crat can fix it.) Ottava did not claim any emergency requiring bypass of the 48 hour period. Ottava, at the time, also claimed that he was still my mentor, and denied any right for me to ask for another mentor. His interpretation would make an original mentor a total dictator able to veto future candidacy, the opposite of the policy intention.
My warning and block as within discretion were later confirmed by the 'crat, Jtneill, who reiterated the warning. Ottava promptly filed a Community Review with complaints about Jtneill. Things seemed quiet for a while, but ultimately, Ottava's habits led him into even more severe incivility and disruption, more Community Reviews, and he was desysopped. I don't think it's necessary, but I can substantiate any details on request. --Abd 19:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been significant disagreement with the action by multiple users of the local project? NonvocalScream 19:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was significant disagreement with the action before it was made. When trying to propose a policy change to ensure that there were no more loopholes, Abd and SB Johnny inappropriaely closed the propose and silenced any community response. There are less than a dozen users who are active on those pages, so it doesn't take much to stop the community, especially through intimidation which is common to SB Johnny. As you can see, he managed to desysop a long term member of the community (JWSchmidt) merely by linking to some fake declaration and without community discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion of the proposal which Ottava made to change WV process was not closed, but only !voting in a poll started without prior discussion, by Ottava, in response to the "abuse" he's claiming. That closure was made by SB Johnny, initially. Ottava reverted. After some delay and reflection, I re-closed. These were ordinary user editorial actions, no tools were used. Any other user could again re-open on their own responsibility. The closure was only of the Support/Oppose sections, not of discussion, which is continuing.
  • Subsequent events confirmed that the "declaration" in the matter of JWSchmidt was not "fake." The whole affair was unfortunate, but probably necessary. JWS has been invited to request custodianship again, but has shown no interest in it. Ottava, himself, for almost two years, could have offered to mentor. If there was a problem, it could have been immediately fixed. --Abd 19:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JWS does not need to re-request something that was taken outside of policy and process. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"change WV process was not closed" Closing a straw poll is closing the discussion, as straw polls are part of the discussion. The other RfCs all had immediate straw polls, as well as most RfCs across the WMF. This is more of Abd making original claims about what exists and substituting them for reality. That is why it is impossible to deal with him on a tiny project. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava is the problem here, not SBJ, Abd, wikiversity policy or anything else. Suggest the proper conclusion for the Meta community is that it endorse the actions of Jtneill and SBJ and censure Ottava for needless drama. ++Lar: t/c 19:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you demonstrate that? NonvocalScream 19:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Steward already said to open it. The same Steward said that lack of community consensus was troubling. Lar has a long and negative relationship with me, including my role in his losing his Stewardship over his abusive and problematic interactions with others. He is also a user who uses Wikipedia Review to make nasty attacks upon me. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The list of folk that have "long and negative relationship"s with you is long. And negative, in that it reflects badly on you, not them. As for the rest, you're distorting events. As per usual. The reality distortion field in operation around you is strong and ensures that everything is always someone else's fault, never yours. Go find a better use for your time than wasting everyone else's. Seriously.++Lar: t/c 22:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another user has already pointed out that your comments are nasty and inappropriate. Did you apologize for your behavior? No. Have you apologized for anything that led up to you being desteward? No. Instead, you cast stones out of a vendetta. You rant above ignores that MuZemike said you were being inappropriate. Thus, one could say that your comments apply far more to you than ever to me. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to MuZemike, just below, I've asked him to clarify. I really don't think he's referring to my comments, but rather your much more extensive ones, and in fact this whole sorry RFC, but I could be wrong. ++Lar: t/c 13:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could post his clarification in IRC or show a trusted Meta user who uses IRC the comments so they can verify MuZemike's thoughts. However, it is really obvious that his adding the colons to respond to you, and MuZemike's edit summary saying he needed to make it appear that he was responding to you, that he is responding to you. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the nebulous accusations and lack of explanations of nearly anything, this sounds more like petty politics than anything else. MuZemike 19:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an RfC on SBJ, not a place to collect evidence about Ottava. I've described the situation as I felt necessary, but it's up to meta admins to handle this. My opinion, as I stated, is that Ottava is being disruptive, wasting the time of stewards and others here, with what is, indeed, very petty and very personal. Wikiversity is highly tolerant of "disruptive users," it goes with the academic nature of the wiki, and Ottava has been a valuable contributor. On the other hand, he needs some guidance, and a proposal to block him on WV was just put up by an experienced user, a former admin. Here, I'd suggest warning him against starting useless process, and given what I've seen, he should probably stay off of meta (supposedly he retired!), but an intermediate solution would be to state specific restrictions and provide a means for him to bypass them if needed, such as having a mentor here, if anyone would offer, to approve stuff before filing. It could even just be some people who'd agree to watch his user talk page. There was no emergency. --Abd 20:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On review off all the above, I don't see anything actionable by the larger community here. I do suggest opening up a local discussion as required on the local project. Best, NonvocalScream 20:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The local project does not have enough activity to have an appropriate discussion and Meta is used to resolve these problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, NVS. My position, exactly. --Abd 20:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't belong here. A wiki should be able to come up with a policy by itself really. I tend to agree with Lar and think it should be ended, with or without censure. fr33kman 22:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A wiki with less than a dozen active users in such discussions and with policies that are determined by less than 10 people is appropriate? It only takes a handful of users to dominate things, especially with what is proven above. It is WMF policy that Consensus is required on -all- projects, which local policy can't overcome. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A think that any number of people can come to a compromise, and that is what consensus really should be. If I may be so bold to also point out, as a person who has had little interaction with you, and none of it contentious, that people are probably getting a little tired of seeing your name connected with some controversy or other. I don't think you can help your causes by bringing them to meta. Sorry! fr33kman 22:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"number of people can come to a compromise" Multiple people said they did not trust Abd and did not want him to receive mentorship. They were ignored. The users involved have a long history of ignoring community consensus. Effectively, you are backing a situation where the minority dominate the minority and put up a chilling environment silencing any challenges. This user was desysopped by Jimbo for this very problem. And it is insulting that you would think that I have no right to bring this up as a problem when there is clear abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When a proposal was put up to remove Administrators who were inactive, on average, for over 2 years, SB Johnny email canvassed all of those administrators and told them that they would lose their status unless they voted against it. They came, they voted, and they vanished again. That is on the very same RfC page. That shows how the community has no real voice and is destroyed with such games. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be glad you get that much participation at Wikiversity, Ottava. I'd be very happy if our community forums at Wikibooks had that level of activity. – Adrignola talk 22:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We had more until the atmosphere was destroyed by SB Johnny desysopping JWS without cause, and then we lost more and more people as the problems progressed. I could list at least a dozen people who I use to work with all the time that are no longer at Wikiversity because of the problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At not time did I say that you should not bring problems to meta. I merely pointed, out correctly in my view, that people are getting a little tired of seeing you complain about one thing or another or someone complaining about you. Surely it must make you rethink how you interact with the wiki, no? It's true I don't think this one belongs here, it can be solved locally; some compromises may be needed, but ... fr33kman
So, you are saying that this has no merit because I complain about serious abuse of ops related to cases that I am involved in? By the way, what other incidents? Are you referring to my complaint that John Vandenberg knowingly yet Poetlister use Wikisource while using multiple accounts to email harass users? Are you saying I was wrong there even though I was one of the users harassed? Are you saying I am wrong now for complaining that though I and others voiced serious concerns about Abd that he was given administrator rights anyway and that it effectively allows Abd to have permanent ops through merely claiming a new mentorship at the end of each month period even though the community says no? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all; serious abuse of local policy should be dealt with locally and then a steward only become involved when the local discussion. On a smaller wiki this process make that weeks if not months. Have patiences. But, I guess what I am really trying to say is that many people are simply sick of seeing you complain. To put it bluntly, sorry. fr33kman 23:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have some strange notion that small groups of people who have full power are some how willing to listen objectively to the concerns of others or do the right thing. If you read the Meta RfCs, you will see that people have constantly voiced concerns regarding small, isolated communities. If you bothered to actually read this RfC, you will see that attempts to have discussions were intervened with made up claims about what can and can't be done in discussion and stifling any honest correction of major concerns. It seems that others are capable of seeing what you refuse to see. With permission of the Stewards who commented to me over IRC about doing something about this on Meta, I would like to post their IRC logs. I talked to many people before doing this, so your attempt to silence it for no reason is rather undeserved. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of the classic methods of siding an argument is to attack how the person thinks, their notions, and statements such as "if you bothered to actually read this RfC" show a loss of courtesy which is the beginning to a loss of the discussion; swearing sometimes next. I have read the RfC and the arguments locally and my two points remain the same; 1) this should be dealt with locally and 2) I see people making up their minds about you in a negative way, sadly some of them who don't even know you. As to who has the "power", well I'm an admin, crat, CU and former oversighter and current global sysop and my ideas get shot down all the time, and I've seen the same happen to all the stewards, enadmins, etc.,,, so I call BS on that one, sorry. fr33kman 23:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"an argument is to attack how the person think" Are you going to claim you didn't do this? You haven't once discussed the propriety of the original actions or SB Johnny's ignoring of community consensus then driving people away from a policy to fix it. It is odd how you think everything can be dealt with locally yet Meta RfC exists because it can't. By the way, your ideas probably get shot down in projects where you didn't desysop people without discussion and got away with it through threats. Your ideas probably weren't shot down where there were less than 12 people active in the community's major forum over a month period. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I merely pointed out that people tend to see you name attached to controversy and arguments alot. Personally, I'm not going to comment on the contents or persons involved in this RfC because I believe it belongs locally, and I don't edit wikiversity. fr33kman 00:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"pointed out that people tend" Yes, and do you have an on topic response to the situation? Something that can actually deal with the matter instead of ignoring it? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I could offer an "on-topic" issue, but as I have nicely pointed out, it belongs on en.wikiversity. Still, you seem to get upset and a bit insulting with people who either don;t agree with you or are apathetic due to the number if issues seen raised in which you are involved. :) fr33kman 04:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"you seem to get upset" Just because you declare me upset does not make me upset. I don't think it is civil to make things up about other people to spread a negative view of them completely disconnected from reality, and I would ask that you stop. You have ignored any actual evidence and have acted in a very disparaging way. You statement above, as many others, were very inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really even sure I should dignify this with a response (the characterization of many of the events are quite simply false), but if someone besides Ottava needs clarification about something, let me know.

Speaking of letting me know: shouldn't I have been notified about this? I learned about it from Wikipedia Review, but don't have anything I can see on my user talk... --SB_Johnny|talk|books 00:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was linked under Kylu's request to move it. And you were quite active in making incivil statements in the thread on WR, so you were notified. As for your other claims, at least disagrees with your claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is inappropriate to subvert local policy, and there is no policy mechanism for meta to act on such a proposal. This should be immediately closed. As an aside, Ottava has opened multiple requests both here at meta and also on en-wv to the point where these ongoing and determined efforts thwart any attempt to rationaly discuss any perceived issues that are of concern to the community. By creating discussions, reviews and requests in so many locations Ottava is dividing the attention of the wv community to the extent that it is very difficult to hold a central and cohesive debate on the points of concern. --mikeu talk 15:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: SRP/SB_Johnny@enwikiversity (#1) User talk:Jimbo Wales Wikiversity:Community Review/SB Johnny SRP/SB_Johnny@enwikiversity (#2) --mikeu talk 17:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • yeah, my point. Eventually, I'd like some recognition on Wikiversity that I tried to stop these "ongoing and determined efforts," there, and that this was prevented by SB_Johnny, specifically, and hypocritically. I personally support the removal of SB_Johnny's bits, but not here, not this way, at all,, and not for the reasons given here. The opposite, almost. --Abd 16:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"nd there is no policy mechanism for meta to act on such a proposal" Actually, this is he process and happens quite often when there are less than a few dozen people able to participate. No project is isolated from the rest, and Meta was designed to serve in this capacity. Multiple Stewards, like Kylu, said this was an appropriate route when discussion was killed at Wikiversity. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion was not "killed" at Wikiversity. Ottava goes to IRC with stewards and feeds them a line of crap, and they say, I assume, "Well, if there was crap like that, then ...." and then Ottava runs with it. Ottava had invented an entirely new process for Wikiversity, a "confirmation hearing," and placed this on the v:Candidates for custodianship page, thus corrupting the page from its intended purpose. That was closed, by me, on that basis. When the closure stuck, Ottava then moved the page to a "Community Review," which is still open. Wikiversity has 'crats who can open and close processes like this, but Ottava arrogated that to himself. And then misrepresented it, I assume, to stewards. This is why Ottava has to go. He's been lying, over and over and over. Some of his lies are believed, and then there is even more damage. He's also got a coterie of knee-jerk supporters who, when he starts one of these puppies, may pile in and support his position. Within minutes. IRC. It may take months to sort out the damage. --Abd 18:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused as to how you think your closing a discussion and then threatening people is some how conducive to an open and honest discussion about policy? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How long have you been lying like this, Ottava? I closed a discussion, no threat was involved in that. The discussion wasn't about policy, it was about SB_Johnny. Above, Ottava lied. Let him correct it, claim it was an honest mistake, then I get to strike my comments about lies. The one who was threatening was Ottava, he was threatening that if anyone "interfered" with the "confirmation hearing" he'd made up, they would be blocked, see the evidence at [5], and, in fact, apparently the decision had already been made: 2 neutral custodians are already watching it, and you will be blocked when they come on.
As I recall, I haven't checked, the threat that I was to be blocked, was before I closed the discussion. I think I closed it partly to test the proposed theory, I really wanted to know who these custodians were! I asked, by the way. Ottava never disclosed it. Nobody showed up to block me, for sure, and the closure stayed as I described, until the page was moved to a more appropriate location. There was still a problem with it, it was still written as a "confirmation hearing," but ... by this time there were larger problems! --Abd 21:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Ottava was deeply concerned about something, and apparently brought it to the wrong forum. Nobody's perfect, so there's no point throwing endless amounts of rotten veggies at the guy. I have no idea how these things are "closed", but I'm not worried about it, and nobody else needs to worry about it if y'all would just drop your sticks and find something else to satisfy your urge to do something ;-). --SB_Johnny talk 00:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey buddy, who do you think you are, the subject of this? Oh. Never mind. --Abd 02:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not? Well, carry on then! --SB_Johnny talk 02:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We do carry on, don't we? --Abd 04:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]