Unblock Request 2012/2013 Options

[Ottava]

Public copy:

Dear ArbCom,

As you know, the fourth year of my one year ban has begun. This is quite an embarassing situation for the Wiki because it shows a complete disregard for the basics of justice, logic, and definitions.

If you recall, the flimsy justification for my continuing to be banned was a lack of coming to terms for a parole. Such terms were never even discussed as per the leaks of the ArbCom-l list. Instead, the list was used by Arbitrators to make some of the most egregious personal attacks and catty statements about me that would have resulted in long blocks if made anywhere on Wikipedia.

My sentence was one year with probationary terms afterwards. Probation, as everyone knows, is not held within a prison. There cannot be a block when probation exists. The probation started immediately following the end of my one year term regardless of the actual condition of my status or any terms thereof. Many admin have made this point and one even went ahead with their unblock of me before (for which I asked him to quickly reblock as it is a matter of principal that ArbCom acknowledge that they had no right to act in such a manner).

The terms for my being blocked were flimsy at best.

* There was one claim of a BLP violation for a comment about an academic that I could (and have) backed up with sources (I stated that he was not respected after he wrote material for Britannica).


* There was claims I inappropriately accused people of meat puppetry even though the own statement says that an outsider would make the same claims (and that same admin outed me quite viciously and passed around my personal info via email).

* There was a statement saying that I would not acknowledge experts in the dispute even though those experts never revealed any personal information that would verify they had any background they claimed and sources contradicted them. My background, transcripts, degrees, and the rest were provided to ArbCom and others, which verified my status as an academic, an expert in the fields I focus on, and someone with real credentials.

* Then there was the odd claim that one individual admin could declare a user within probation against community consensus, which was the whole point

The most egregious part was that the case formed around Moreschi's use of admin privileges to delete an RfC I filed against Risker out of process. His actions led to a block that was quickly overturned, and the question of Risker's involvement with Geogre was a central component of the case. Risker did not recuse, and even made many harsh comments on the ArbCom-l email list to attack my character, comments that would have resulted in her being blocked if made in public. She even made catty statements about my appearing at various Wiki events, even though I was personally invited by Cary Bass and Sage Ross (NewYorkBrad also made a similarly catty statement).

She was not the only one to make comments. When an admin came before ArbCom for both being an accused pedophile and also someone who abused his administrative powers on Wikipedia to cause other people harm, it was said on the list that he was showing characteristics of me. The accusation was that I was the standard of all bad behavior on Wikipedia, and that a pedophilic abusive admin was still no where near as bad as anything that I ever did. There were many more attacks, but not one person ever said that such comments were inappropriate for the list, especially when I never had anything to do with such matters.

For my part, I produced the highest rate of quality content that the Wiki has ever seen. My pages are still the standard for high content, and all but one of my Featured Articles will have been displayed on the main page (the last will never because it deals with a touchy subject of Lord Byron and possible sex with a 14 year old boy).

I proved that I was able to work with some of the most hostile or incivil people on the Wiki. This is a feat that has not been accomplished by anyone since, even though the Arbitrators who smeared me consistently in the ArbCom-l convinced themselves that I was never able to work with anyone. Oddly enough, those same Arbitrators claimed I am the incivil one, even though I never cussed, never made attacks, or did anything even close. My "incivility" was saying that people who sock and meatpuppet were acting abusive.

Those Arbitrators labelled me paranoid for being upset that I was the target of the sock puppetry of Geogre, Jack Merridew, and Unitanode. These individuals not only attacked me and consistently did whatever they could to try and indefinitely ban me, but they involved themselves in content to try and push things that directly contradicted sources, defended plagiarism, and other abuses that a normal person would not see as acceptable on Wikipedia. They were a plague, and they went after anyone they could. Durova, John Carter, Sandy George, Raul, etc. experienced the same problems I did and fought against these individuals at different times. Yet my asking for something to be done to deal with the obvious was met with ridicule.

I am disliked because I point out plagiarism, and have revealed tens of thousands of pages of it so far by some of the most prolific content contributors. I exposed problems among people gaming the system. I did so with 6 of the Arbitrators. I pointed out socking that led to abuse that the Arbitrators could have prevented and did nothing about. I pointed out tons of copyright infringment that they had evidence for but sat on it.

Is that really how an encyclopedia operates? It isn't civil. Civility means to act within a code of conduct that deals with propriety. Justice is an important component of it, and justice means to treat others in a certain way and also to act in a certain way. Gaming the system, socking, plagiarizing, and the such are not civil. They are not the good behavior of a Wiki citizen.


I never socked. Not once. I still produced high quality content and left it to the care of well respected members of the community to move it over. Is it a coincidence that Rlevse, upset that I sent a group of people proof of his plagiarism long before it came out publicly (and after many months of trying to get him to fix it first) fought so hard against those pages from being moved in?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ode:_Intimations_of_Immortality

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elegy_Written...ntry_Churchyard

Are some of the greatest pages on Wikipedia, yet he tried to do whatever he could to make sure they weren't put there. These were pages that had nothing there. They are fundamentally important poems and the research is impecable.

The other page,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubla_Khan

had a shoddy version, and recent edits introduced plagiarism and original research. ArbCom was provided with a list of clear plagiarism and copyright introduced on the page and failed to do anything to correct it.


Why is that so? Why is anyone happy with this standard?

Well, ArbCom itself is not happy. Last time my ban come up for discussion, it was 50/50 and ArbCom refused to make it public because there was no consensus to keep me banned. Iridescent, a long term advocate for my unban, was unavailable for the discussion and would have been the vote to get me unbanned. The Arbitrators all knew it yet did not say anything. Why?

The ArbCom does not want editors, nor do they want to support them. The ArbCom exists only to make arbitrator decisions or petty decisions. It has been dysfunctional, but so has Wikipedia been since 2009. There is little content made but tons of plagiarism is being introduced every day. Huge content areas are severely lacking, and the only way to have any guarentee of editing on Wikipedia is to sock, form your little petty groups, and wage war on other petty groups. It is a rather lawless community because there is no desire to end such behavior at the top.

This is an unblock request. This is not an unban request because my ban ended at the end of 2010. It is being copied elsewhere because public copies are the only way to guarentee that the community is actually kept in the loop in matters that they are supposed to be involved in. This will be the last unblock request I will make because I really don't care for such a broken system as this one with its constant hoop jumping and having to act in various ways merely to meet the fickle desires of a group that only wants to see someone debase themselves for petty amusement without any actual guarentees it will change their mind.

I don't expect to be unblocked because ArbCom is not a system of justice. It is a system of whim. I have no hope for Wikipedia's future because there are few left that actually show the ability and skill necessary to do the right thing. The most prominent content editors, like Malleus, edit primarily in topics that aren't that important while important areas continue to flounder.

Wikipedia is not the sinking Titannic. It is Gilligan's Island, long after the initial crash and a bunch of people running around in the same circles every day just trying to mildly amuse themselves as they wait for death. Wikipedia would be a far better sitcom than it could ever be an encyclopedia.

[The Joy]

Let's pretend that I'm an Arbitrator reading this. "The Joy as Arbitrator" comments in parentheses and bolded.

Public copy:

Dear ArbCom, (Oh no. Not him again. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif))

As you know, the fourth year of my one year ban has begun. (And yet the wiki seems no less insane as we had hoped.) This is quite an embarassing (Misspelled "embarrassing." Why do we want him back as a FA writer? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/nope.gif) ) situation for the Wiki because it shows a complete disregard for the basics of justice, logic, and definitions. (So he's not going to talk about his past behavior that got him banned/blocked/whatever and, instead, is going to go on a diatribe about how Wikipedia is so corrupted? Bummer.)

If you recall, (For those of us who can with brain cells left after dealing with the likes of you.) the flimsy justification for my continuing to be banned was a lack of coming to terms for a parole. (Because we as a committee and several members of the community knew you would just continue your bad behavior after returning.) Such terms were never even discussed as per the leaks of the ArbCom-l list. (Yay! He's bringing up an incident that made us, his judges, look like idiots. That's always a good strategy to use when appealing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/nope.gif). How do you even know that's all we said about you? The leaks were strategically leaked and not everything was revealed.) Instead, the list was used by Arbitrators to make some of the most egregious personal attacks and catty statements about me that would have resulted in long blocks if made anywhere on Wikipedia. (Well, that explains why we said such things off-wiki... wait a minute. Did he just insult us again?)

My sentence was one year with probationary terms afterwards. (We were being very generous and yet you still insult us.) Probation, as everyone knows, is not held within a prison. (There are rewards systems in prison. For example, an inmate that behaves appropriately for X amount of time could be given better prison accommodations. I admit, though, that may not be what you are talking about.) There cannot be a block when probation exists. The probation started immediately following the end of my one year term regardless of the actual condition of my status or any terms thereof. (Your activities on and off-wiki indicate you were never going to change. Why bother trying to further reason with you? Even if you have a "wiki-legal" point here, there's nothing to stop us going "Ignore All Rules" in your case and keep you blocked ad infinitum). Many admin have made this point and one even went ahead with their unblock of me before (for which I asked him to quickly reblock as it is a matter of principal that ArbCom acknowledge that they had no right to act in such a manner). (Should be "principle." Those advocating on your behalf are certainly welcome to contact the committee. However, until we get assurances from you that you will not return to the same behavior that got you banned in the first place, we're just going around in circles. If you would stop and think about others besides yourself, you would realize that you have, and continue to, hurt the reputations of your defenders with your on and off-wiki behavior. Could you think about them for a second, you dingus?)

The terms for my being blocked were flimsy (The word "flimsy" again? Doesn't he have a PhD in British Literature?) at best.

* There was one claim of a BLP violation for a comment about an academic that I could (and have) backed up with sources (I stated that he was not respected after he wrote material for Britannica). (You could have asked someone to correct it via e-mail, on or off-wiki. We could also argue that anyone could have eventually found and corrected the problem. Crowdsourcing and all that jazz cures everything, don'tcha know?)


* There was claims I inappropriately accused people of meat puppetry even though the own statement says that an outsider would make the same claims (and that same admin outed me quite viciously and passed around my personal info via email). ("There was claims...?" "The own statement?" Diffs, evidence, and all that Big Band music, please.

* There was a statement (Where?)saying that I would not acknowledge experts in the dispute even though those experts never revealed any personal information that would verify they had any background they claimed and sources contradicted them. My background, transcripts, degrees, and the rest were provided to ArbCom and others, which verified my status as an academic, an expert in the fields I focus on, and someone with real credentials. (You know that being an "expert" does not always make you right, you know? Demonstrating your intellectual and moral superiority to others will never win you friends, even if you right.)

* Then there was the odd claim (Again, where?) that one individual admin could declare a user within probation against community consensus, which was the whole point (What? No period at the end of the sentence? Mr. Period does not approve!)

The most egregious part was that the case formed around Moreschi's use of admin privileges to delete an RfC I filed against Risker out of process. (I'm going to regret asking this, but what case?) His actions led to a block that was quickly overturned, and the question of Risker's involvement with Geogre was a central component of the case. Risker did not recuse, and even made many harsh comments on the ArbCom-l email list to attack my character, comments that would have resulted in her being blocked if made in public. She even made catty statements about my appearing at various Wiki events, even though I was personally invited by Cary Bass and Sage Ross (NewYorkBrad also made a similarly catty statement). (What on earth does this have to do with anything? You're insulting my fellow colleagues again. Again, show the evidence! Put up or shut up!)

She was not the only one to make comments. (He's still going on about how terrible we arbitrators behave? Does he even know the definition of an appeal?)When an admin came before ArbCom (Ugh.. where, Ottava, where!?! We arbs are not omnipresent.)for both being an accused pedophile and also someone who abused his administrative powers on Wikipedia to cause other people harm, it was said on the list that he was showing characteristics of me. The accusation was that I was the standard of all bad behavior on Wikipedia, and that a pedophilic ("Pedophiliac")abusive admin was still no where ("Nowhere.")near as bad as anything that I ever did. There were many more attacks (Again with the no evidence! Oy vei!), but not one person ever said that such comments were inappropriate for the list, especially when I never had anything to do with such matters.

For my part, I produced the highest rate of quality content that the Wiki has ever seen. (For now, there will be others. Again, crowdsourcing and all that Punk Rock. Besides, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, Ottava. This is not a project for the vain or prideful. You either work well with others or you shove off. That's the way it has always been.) My pages ("Yours!?!" What did I just say!?!) are still the standard for high content, and all but one of my Featured Articles will have been displayed on the main page (the last will never because it deals with a touchy subject of Lord Byron and possible sex with a 14 year old boy).

I proved that I was able to work with some of the most hostile or incivil people on the Wiki. (Except you were one of "most hostile or incivil people on the Wiki.")This is a feat that has not been accomplished by anyone since (Boy, you are full of yourself, aren't you?), even though the Arbitrators who smeared me consistently in the ArbCom-l convinced themselves that I was never able to work with anyone. Oddly enough, those same Arbitrators claimed (Sigh... where?) I am the incivil (There's some debate online about whether "incivil" is even a word. I'll let you off with this one.)one, even though I never cussed, never made attacks, or did anything even close. My "incivility" was saying that people who sock and meatpuppet were acting abusive. (Shouldn't that be "abusively?")

Those Arbitrators (Again with the insulting of me and my colleagues! How barbarous and egregious!) labelled me paranoid for being upset that I was the target of the sock puppetry of Geogre, Jack Merridew, and Unitanode. These individuals not only attacked me and consistently did whatever they could to try and indefinitely ban me, but they involved themselves in content to try and push things that directly contradicted sources, defended plagiarism, and other abuses that a normal person would not see as acceptable on Wikipedia. They were a plague, and they went after anyone they could. Durova, John Carter, Sandy George, Raul, etc. experienced the same problems I did and fought against these individuals at different times. Yet my asking for something to be done to deal with the obvious was met with ridicule. (Two wrongs do not make a right, Ottava. Calling other Wikipedians in good standing with the community a "plague" is not winning you any favors. Also, "Wikipedia is not a battleground," and all that Samba music.)

I am disliked (Yes! Now let's see if you understand why!) because I point out plagiarism, and have revealed tens of thousands of pages of it so far by some of the most prolific content contributors. I exposed problems among people gaming the system. I did so with 6 of the Arbitrators. I pointed out socking that led to abuse that the Arbitrators could have prevented and did nothing about. I pointed out tons of copyright infringment that they had evidence for but sat on it. (Mmmm... I guess you don't understand why. Another bummer.)

Is that really how an encyclopedia operates? (Well, Wikipedia does apparently.) It isn't civil. (Well, you're no Mother Theresa yourself!) Civility means to act within a code of conduct that deals with propriety. Justice is an important component of it, and justice means to treat others in a certain way and also to act in a certain way. Gaming the system, socking, plagiarizing, and the such are not civil. They are not the good behavior of a Wiki citizen. (Arbcom knows that. That's why we banned you. Don't you see the irony in your statements?)


I never socked. (But you did inhale?) Not once. (Oh, you did not sock once? So you admit to socking? Good, then begone with ye, you pernicious caitiff!) I still produced high quality content and left it to the care of well respected members of the community to move it over. Is it a coincidence that Rlevse, upset that I sent a group of people proof of his plagiarism long before it came out publicly (and after many months of trying to get him to fix it first) fought so hard against those pages from being moved in?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ode:_Intimations_of_Immortality

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elegy_Written...ntry_Churchyard

Are some of the greatest pages on Wikipedia, (By your standards.) yet he tried to do whatever he could to make sure they weren't put there. These were pages that had nothing there. (There would have been eventually. Crowdsourcing and all that Boy Band.) They are fundamentally important poems and the research is impecable. ("Impeccable.")

The other page,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubla_Khan

had a shoddy version, and recent edits introduced plagiarism and original research. ArbCom was provided with a list of clear plagiarism and copyright introduced on the page and failed to do anything to correct it.


Why is that so? Why is anyone happy with this standard? (Arbcom deals with dispute resolution. The community at large is in charge of content. Had you behaved and treated people graciously, you could be fixing these problems yourself.)

Well, ArbCom itself is not happy. (That's the truth. We can't deny it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)) Last time my ban come up for discussion, it was 50/50 and ArbCom refused to make it public because there was no consensus to keep me banned. Iridescent, a long term advocate for my unban, was unavailable for the discussion and would have been the vote to get me unbanned. The Arbitrators all knew it yet did not say anything. Why? (Under Wikipedia rules, "no consensus" means that the status quo remains. Even if half the Arbcom agreed with unbanning you, the lack of any consensus means your ban remains as it is the status quo position. Until a new consensus emerges from Arbcom that sets you free, you're scuppered.)

The ArbCom does not want editors, (Yes, we all became arbitrators on an encyclopedia solely to treat editors and writers like crap. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)) nor do they want to support them. The ArbCom exists only to make arbitrator decisions or petty decisions. (Well... yes... that's what we do. We're arbitrators and we make "arbitrator decisions." That's the point of an Arbitration Committee.) It has been dysfunctional, (Don't I know it!) but so has Wikipedia been since 2009. (Since 2001, actually.) There is little content made but tons of plagiarism is being introduced every day. (Citation needed.) Huge content areas are severely lacking, and the only way to have any guarentee ("Guarantee.") of editing on Wikipedia is to sock, form your little petty groups, and wage war on other petty groups. It is a rather lawless community because there is no desire to end such behavior at the top. (Wikipedia's decisions are made at the community level or the "bottom" as you would say. Right or wrong, that's the way it has always been and you just now figured that out?)

This is an unblock request. This is not an unban request (You wasted the committee's time with an unblock request? I've been responding to you for no reason at all? This is another reason no one likes you!) because my ban ended at the end of 2010. It is being copied elsewhere because public copies are the only way to guarentee ("Guarantee.")that the community is actually kept in the loop in matters that they are supposed to be involved in. This will be the last unblock request I will make (Is that a promise?) because I really don't care (Then why did you bother for an unblock/unban/whatever if you hate Wikipedia?) for such a broken system as this one with its constant hoop jumping (Brad got stuck in his hoola-hoop, sadly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)) and having to act in various ways merely to meet the fickle desires of a group that only wants to see someone debase themselves for petty amusement without any actual guarentees ("Guarantees." What is it with you and that word?)it will change their mind. (You said "petty" four times. The Catholic University of America's English department must have been glad to be rid of you.)

I don't expect to be unblocked (And you asked to be unblocked?) because ArbCom is not a system of justice. It is a system of whim. (And yet you contacted us for an appeal... or not? I'm confused.) I have no hope for Wikipedia's future because there are few left that actually show the ability and skill necessary to do the right thing. The most prominent content editors, like Malleus, edit primarily in topics that aren't that important while important areas continue to flounder. (Well, I'm sure Malleus will be happy that you think his topics "aren't that important." That's one less person wanting you unbanned/unblocked/whatever. IRCC, Malleus did defend you despite your less-than-cordial attitude towards him.)

Wikipedia is not the sinking Titannic. ("Titanic.") It is Gilligan's Island, long after the initial crash and a bunch of people running around in the same circles every day just trying to mildly amuse themselves as they wait for death. (At least the Professor could make interesting things out of coconuts. We tried to get Brad to make a coconut radio and he just ate all the coconuts husks and all!) Wikipedia would be a far better sitcom than it could ever be an encyclopedia.

(What? No "sincerely?" No proper signature? How will we know who wrote this appeal? Geez, what a tool. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/nope.gif) )

APPEAL DENIED.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee.
-The Joy

This post has been edited by The Joy:

[Ottava]

Why is that so? Why is anyone happy with this standard? (Arbcom deals with dispute resolution. The community at large is in charge of content. Had you behaved and treated people graciously, you could be fixing these problems yourself.)

Yet all of the examples say otherwise. The Wiki has always existed in a state of war, and the rampant use of sock puppets is just an extension of this. Geogre was going after anyone who dared to enter into his territory.

Even if you suck up to them, bend over backwards, or let them defecate all over your pages, they will still try to get rid of you. Wikipedia attracts crazy people with no business being on an encyclopedia. That hasn't changed with my ban - those same people either disappeared for the most part or kept attacking other people.

You state that I haven't changed. How can anyone "change"? The system is set up to benefit those who game it and only those who game it. Why are there so many sock masters, and so many admin who were restarts or sock masters?

By the way: "("Yours!?!" What did I just say!?!)" Yes, mine. My content, though licensed CC-BY-SA and the such is still credited to me. To remove any credit would be to invalidate the license. Unless they delete the material or start completely over, it will still be my work.

And no, crowdsourcing can't replace individuals. Talent is unique. It is obvious that over the 3 years that no one has been able to even come close to what I accomplished in my area. Peter Damian verifies that it is true across the board on most topics.


As for the spelling - I typed it up on an email device on the road and sent it in. Yes, there was a signature. This was merely a copy of what I sent in. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Jay]

Let's pretend that I'm an Arbitrator reading this. "The Joy as Arbitrator" comments in parentheses and bolded.

I hope you sent this to ArbCom, The Joy. It will save them time having to reinvent the wheel! Have you ever thought of standing for ArbCom yourself? I'd certainly vote for you.

[Ottava]

Let's pretend that I'm an Arbitrator reading this. "The Joy as Arbitrator" comments in parentheses and bolded.

I hope you sent this to ArbCom, The Joy. It will save them time having to reinvent the wheel! Have you ever thought of standing for ArbCom yourself? I'd certainly vote for you.

The Arbitrators are well aware of this thread. All of my unblock appeal justifications have been put here for comment. My unblock appeals were supposed to be discussed by the community per the original ban but were not. This was done to allow community input.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[The Joy]

Let's pretend that I'm an Arbitrator reading this. "The Joy as Arbitrator" comments in parentheses and bolded.

I hope you sent this to ArbCom, The Joy. It will save them time having to reinvent the wheel! Have you ever thought of standing for ArbCom yourself? I'd certainly vote for you.

I do not have enough edits on my wiki-gnome account. I've also pissed off a few people on Wikipedia.

If I ever did run, Speaking Bull over here would make my on and off-wiki life a living hell. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif)

This post has been edited by The Joy:

[Ottava]

I do not have enough edits on my wiki-gnome account. I've also pissed off a few people on Wikipedia.

"Arbitration Committee mailing list" <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>,

The email is publicly posted. You don't need an account to email them. o.O

[Retrospect]

"Arbitration Committee mailing list" <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>,

The email is publicly posted. You don't need an account to email them. o.O

Have you ever thought of standing for ArbCom yourself? I'd certainly vote for you.

I do not have enough edits on my wiki-gnome account. I've also pissed off a few people on Wikipedia.

Look, chump, why don't you find a course on English as a Foreign language? it might help ypur comprehension.

[The Joy]

I do not have enough edits on my wiki-gnome account. I've also pissed off a few people on Wikipedia.

"Arbitration Committee mailing list" <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>,

The email is publicly posted. You don't need an account to email them. o.O

I was saying that I could not run as an arbitrator candidate with my miniscule edit count. I have no reason to e-mail the Arbitration Committee.

Also, Retrospect, I think you misquoted? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[Ottava]

Look, chump, why don't you find a course on English as a Foreign language? it might help ypur comprehension.

1. Why quote The Joy when trying to respond to me?

2. Why don't you learn English before you try to go around criticizing others?



The Joy

I have no reason to e-mail the Arbitration Committee.

Who needs a reason? Tons of people spam their account with nonsense - complaints about Jimbo's hairstyle are probably common. And I see you were answering above to the second part and not the first. Oh well. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Detective]

And I see you were answering above to the second part and not the first. Oh well. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Well done, Ottava. You've got it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[The Joy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...va_come_back.3F

It's looking like a "no" again, Ottava.

[Detective]

Has anyone ever demonstrated that Ottava here is the same person as Ottava Rima on Wikipedia? Surely someone who keeps insulting people, disrupting discussions with irrelevancies and making absurd sockpuppet accusations, while demonstrating a poor command of English, would scarcely be a useful contributor to Wikipedia. Yes, I know there are several contributors to Wikipedia who meet that description, but I said "useful".

[Ottava]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...va_come_back.3F

It's looking like a "no" again, Ottava.

Thanks for trying in that thread though. I don't know why you hate me but you stayed mostly neutral. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Retrospect]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...va_come_back.3F

It's looking like a "no" again, Ottava.

Thanks for trying in that thread though. I don't know why you hate me but you stayed mostly neutral. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

"Thanks for trying in that thread though." He didn't participate!

"I don't know why you hate me" Of course you ruddy do!

[Ottava]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...va_come_back.3F

It's looking like a "no" again, Ottava.

Thanks for trying in that thread though. I don't know why you hate me but you stayed mostly neutral. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

"Thanks for trying in that thread though." He didn't participate!

"I don't know why you hate me" Of course you ruddy do!

He was one of the most active people in that thread. Gesh, you are dense.

[The Joy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...va_come_back.3F

It's looking like a "no" again, Ottava.

Thanks for trying in that thread though. I don't know why you hate me but you stayed mostly neutral. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

"Thanks for trying in that thread though." He didn't participate!

"I don't know why you hate me" Of course you ruddy do!

He was one of the most active people in that thread. Gesh, you are dense.

I'm curious. Which one in that thread do you suspect I am? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Retrospect]

I'm curious. Which one in that thread do you suspect I am? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

That's ruddy Ottava logic. He probably thinks you are two or three of them!

[Ottava]

I'm curious. Which one in that thread do you suspect I am? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

That's ruddy Ottava logic. He probably thinks you are two or three of them!

I'm not sure why my logic would be brown. Must be another Poetlisterism.

[Retrospect]

That's ruddy Ottava logic.

I'm not sure why my logic would be brown.

Don't keep flaunting your ruddy ignorance of English. Obviously any native English speaker would know that "ruddy" isn't "brown".

And The Joy, that proves Ottava here isn't user Ottava Rima. Although Ottava Rima is a total shithead, he does write English correctly, at least most of the time.