Pathoschild Options Rating

[Ottava]

So, Pathoschild was given information showing that Poetlister was emailing from three different accounts on Wikisource requests for personal information and also passing himself off as a new female identity.

He also had information that Poetlister had a new name, Longfellow, and kept the information even though Longfellow was used to run for admin -while- harassing people on other names.

He was given information from myself and from others asking for it to be dealt with and shared. He was given it in both his Steward and Wikisource CU capacity.


The best part? All of the Stewards are circling around him for confirmation, as if a major breach of trust and the aiding of one of the nastiest cross-wiki sock puppets and harassers who was caught passing himself off as another woman.

It is amazing how the firestorm on the global CU list and other email lists is completely ignored to re-elect a guy who has shown not only incompetence but willful abuse of power to aid a well-known harasser.



As a side note, it isn't too surprising to see SB Johnny and Abd go and support Pathoschild even though he has a track record of doing very little but causing problems and making bad judgments. Hell, WR has a lot of talk about problematic behavior. But their statement is just bs politics that is one of the major reasons why the WMF has such problems.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[CharlotteWebb]

Ottava's objections about this candidate are legitimate, but his lack of credibility is likely to outweigh any concerns about said candidate schmoozing with the poetguyim. Unfortunate, really.

Perhaps you'll meet better results if you ask, humbly if possible, for somebody else to speak in your stead.

[-DS-]

Damn, I tried to add an oppose, but got reverted.

[Adrignola]

It is amazing how the firestorm on the global CU list and other email lists is completely ignored to re-elect a guy who has shown not only incompetence but willful abuse of power to aid a well-known harasser.

I don't see how you'd know if there was or wasn't a firestorm on the CU list. Any information on that list is privileged and confidential and anyone disclosing it to you risks removal.

You should ask yourself why "Poetlister" and "Longfellow" are not globally locked before targeting specific individuals for not taking action you believe they should have taken.

[Ottava]

It is amazing how the firestorm on the global CU list and other email lists is completely ignored to re-elect a guy who has shown not only incompetence but willful abuse of power to aid a well-known harasser.

I don't see how you'd know if there was or wasn't a firestorm on the CU list. Any information on that list is privileged and confidential and anyone disclosing it to you risks removal.

You should ask yourself why "Poetlister" and "Longfellow" are not globally locked before targeting specific individuals for not taking action you believe they should have taken.

I'm friends with 8 people on the list and talked through email with 2 WR members who are on that list. IRC has a lot of CUs, mind you, and a lot of people who are too timid to make public statements pass on things to those like me for a reason.

And risk removal? I was the one who submitted info to be on the list and it wasn't. The only one who needs to be removed is Pathoschild for aiding one of the nastiest people who ever came to Wiki.

[SB_Johnny]

I'm friends with 8 people on the list and talked through email with 2 WR members who are on that list. IRC has a lot of CUs, mind you, and a lot of people who are too timid to make public statements pass on things to those like me for a reason.

People from the CU list are sharing confidential info with you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[Ottava]

I'm friends with 8 people on the list and talked through email with 2 WR members who are on that list. IRC has a lot of CUs, mind you, and a lot of people who are too timid to make public statements pass on things to those like me for a reason.

People from the CU list are sharing confidential info with you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

And I share things with them.

I would have to do this if you wouldn't have removed our CUs without community discussion.

[Abd]

As a side note, it isn't too surprising to see SB Johnny and Abd go and support Pathoschild even though he has a track record of doing very little but causing problems and making bad judgments. Hell, WR has a lot of talk about problematic behavior. But their statement is just bs politics that is one of the major reasons why the WMF has such problems.

Well, I asked Lar about his opposition, that concerns me. I !voted there because I saw Ottava oppose, and when Ottava opposes, it's because he has an axe to grind. Otherwise he'll play Nice, long as he can. It's part of his strategy, and it must have been working for a long time.

And I'd seen Pathoschild implement the "local decision" view as to Thekohser, doing a lot of work to make it real, later undone by Mike.lifeguard based on mysterious "discussions." Pathoschild was the good guy, even if it looked bad that he went around blocking Thekohser on local wikis. It was the proper, simple, compromise. And then any sysop at a local wiki could unblock, as some did. Then with Mike's action, a 'crat became necessary, which isn't terrible, but which then allows the spurious "global ban" argument to be used, it sucks in naive users.

Why does Ottava make welcoming users his most prominent activity? Because it creates a positive name recognition, it can serve him later. It's really funny him talking about politics.

Ottava is, I predict, on the edge of being banned from meta. He's lied to the stewards on the Permissions page, as can be seen at permanent link current link. Check out his cited "discussion." He showed and described a Revision from history, thus excluding most of the votes in the direction Ottava hates. Only later, when the real close is shown, does he make his "7 day" argument, taking a position that is entirely new and entirely invented, that comments after the "deadline" are void, thus turning a Community Review into an election, while, at the same time, he's arguing that Steward confirmations aren't elections....

So a steward isn't deceived and closes in the routine direction, and Ottava naturally attacks the steward. He's done this over and over, it has become totally predictable. Cross Ottava, you will be harassed.

People who have not seen Ottava's behavior frequently comment as if he's sane. See Djsasso trying to argue rationally. Ottava is not rational. That is not a personal attack, it's a regretful conclusion from long observation. He's high-functioning, but he is truly a pathological liar, probably believes his own rationalizations. Or he's a psychopath, totally gone.

Ottava is playing a truly useful role. He is showing how vulnerable WMF wikis are to politics. He's done enough to get a dozen editors indeffed, on meta, but he hasn't even been warned recently, much less short-blocked. How someone could do what he's done and have a clean block log is astonishing. It indicates pull, strings behind the seems, which is what Ottava constantly claims.

See the meta RfC on Ottava for a small fraction of his deceptions.

Why am I exercised about this? Because I saw Ottava, on Wikiversity, abusing others, trying to drive away newcomers, feeding their fears (see the User:KBlott affair on Wikiversity), bullying and threatening, and attacking all attempts to restrain him. I knew that trying personally to stop it would not be popular on Wikiversity, but I'm involved in WV for the long haul, and I didn't need sysop tools, for myself. I only needed them to serve the community, as I did. It will take time for the smoke to clear from that.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[SB_Johnny]

I'm friends with 8 people on the list and talked through email with 2 WR members who are on that list. IRC has a lot of CUs, mind you, and a lot of people who are too timid to make public statements pass on things to those like me for a reason.

People from the CU list are sharing confidential info with you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

And I share things with them.

Wow. Which CUs?

[SB_Johnny]

How someone could do what he's done and have a clean [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AOttava+Rima block log] is astonishing. It indicates pull, strings behind the seems, which is what Ottava constantly claims.

You know wikimarkup doesn't actually work on web forums, right? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

You're behind the times anyway.

[Ottava]

I'm friends with 8 people on the list and talked through email with 2 WR members who are on that list. IRC has a lot of CUs, mind you, and a lot of people who are too timid to make public statements pass on things to those like me for a reason.

People from the CU list are sharing confidential info with you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

And I share things with them.

Wow. Which CUs?

I can tell you that Pathoschild and John Vandenberg were no longer two that I shared with after they did that during the Poetlister/Longfellow matter.




Abd


I welcome people as well as other odd end jobs. It is something to do when recent change patrolling. I also spend a lot of time archiving.

[SB_Johnny]

I'm friends with 8 people on the list and talked through email with 2 WR members who are on that list. IRC has a lot of CUs, mind you, and a lot of people who are too timid to make public statements pass on things to those like me for a reason.

People from the CU list are sharing confidential info with you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

And I share things with them.

Wow. Which CUs?

I can tell you that Pathoschild and John Vandenberg were no longer two that I shared with after they did that during the Poetlister/Longfellow matter.

Let's rephrase: they shared (and or still do share) CU findings and information with you that are not otherwise public?

[Ottava]

Let's rephrase: they shared (and or still do share) CU findings and information with you that are not otherwise public?

IP addresses? No. I couldn't use IP addresses if I had them. I don't know how to work that part of things.

Do they tell me if a user who is active at Wikiversity socked elsewhere? Yep. Is that private info? Not really. Not all socks who are blocked have pages saying all of their socks or says who the user is and doing what.

Do they tell me if there are responses when I send in information about socking? Normally.




And WizardOfOz's revenge block is priceless. Shortly after he is forced to accept his block of Guido was wrong he blocks me for the same thing. Nice.




Peter Damian

Your vote counts at Meta: "To comment, please log in with an account that has edits (on any wiki) before February 1st 2011." http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm

Their bot isn't within policy to disregard your comments as confirmation is not a "vote".

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[SB_Johnny]

Let's rephrase: they shared (and or still do share) CU findings and information with you that are not otherwise public?

IP addresses? No. I couldn't use IP addresses if I had them. I don't know how to work that part of things.

Do they tell me if a user who is active at Wikiversity socked elsewhere? Yep. Is that private info? Not really. Not all socks who are blocked have pages saying all of their socks or says who the user is and doing what.

Do they tell me if there are responses when I send in information about socking? Normally.

Okay. Still, not very wise to feed the Ottavan Inquisition.

And WizardOfOz's revenge block is priceless. Shortly after he is forced to accept his block of Guido was wrong he blocks me for the same thing. Nice.

Keep on shovelling if you want to make it stick. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Lar]

Peter Damian

Your vote counts at Meta: "To comment, please log in with an account that has edits (on any wiki) before February 1st 2011." http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm

Their bot isn't within policy to disregard your comments as confirmation is not a "vote".

If that's the case than none of these comments should have been stricken, Pathoschild's tool is for checking votes for new stewards.... Oops.

[Ottava]

Peter Damian

Your vote counts at Meta: "To comment, please log in with an account that has edits (on any wiki) before February 1st 2011." http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm

Their bot isn't within policy to disregard your comments as confirmation is not a "vote".

If that's the case than none of these comments should have been stricken, Pathoschild's tool is for checking votes for new stewards.... Oops.

Yep, but Lar -

Confirm isn't a vote yet most people are only voting, which is stupid. Remember previous years? We had lists of concerns and positive attributes. The committee looks at those, see how often they were brought up, and decide on that. Perhaps people just putting up "keep" without a reason should be notified as they aren't doing their friends any favors by not putting a reason, even a stupid reason like mine (which is just "trustworthy and helpful").

[jayvdb]

I'm friends with 8 people on the [checkuser] list..

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Ottava]

I'm friends with 8 people on the [checkuser] list..

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

4 of them are facebook friends at least. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

I met 2 of the ones that edit here in real life and a few others that don't in real life.

But anyway, John, are you saying that we weren't, at one time, friends? If so, I'll accept that. I probably should have known that before trusting you with information on Poetlister and expecting you to deal with him so his harassing emails asking for person information from me or him trying to convince me he was some new female identity that he most likely stole would finally end.

I considered us friends when we use to work together at Wikiversity in 2008. I helped you out in the ArbCom election when various ethnic groups upset at you started canvassing because of what I thought was a friendship. Hell, I helped spread positive statements about you during the last election under the assumption we were still friends.

Perhaps I was just naive and just being used by a guy who wanted power. Is that what you are trying to say?

[Wikicrusher2]

I'm friends with 8 people on the [checkuser] list..

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

4 of them are facebook friends at least. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

I met 2 of the ones that edit here in real life and a few others that don't in real life.

But anyway, John, are you saying that we weren't, at one time, friends? If so, I'll accept that. I probably should have known that before trusting you with information on Poetlister and expecting you to deal with him so his harassing emails asking for person information from me or him trying to convince me he was some new female identity that he most likely stole would finally end.

I considered us friends when we use to work together at Wikiversity in 2008. I helped you out in the ArbCom election when various ethnic groups upset at you started canvassing because of what I thought was a friendship. Hell, I helped spread positive statements about you during the last election under the assumption we were still friends.

Perhaps I was just naive and just being used by a guy who wanted power. Is that what you are trying to say?

Must every thread you are involved in turn into narcissistic conflicts and irrelevant personal WP drama? It seems that in every post you make, the whole show revolves around you. Also, ethnic groups? What was that about?

This post has been edited by Wikicrusher2:

[jayvdb]

Perhaps I was just naive and just being used by a guy who wanted power. Is that what you are trying to say?

Yes, that is it. You've summed it up very well. Thank you.

[Ottava]

Perhaps I was just naive and just being used by a guy who wanted power. Is that what you are trying to say?

Yes, that is it. You've summed it up very well. Thank you.

I hope that is sarcasm because I don't believe you were using me. I believe you were my friend.


I fought with Pathoschild in chat about Poetlister and he said he didn't get the email until a few weeks after we discussed it in chat and when he did it matched up with the time he was on vacation. I can believe most of his story about it and I don't feel that he didn't ignore the original. I still don't know your full place on it, or why both of you let him run instead of just blocking him.

It is all too confusing for me, and anything dealing with Poetlister is far too painful for me to think about.

[Abd]

How someone could do what he's done and have a clean [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AOttava+Rima block log] is astonishing. It indicates pull, strings behind the seems, which is what Ottava constantly claims.

You know wikimarkup doesn't actually work on web forums, right? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

You're behind the times anyway.

Aw, SBJ, so I do a bunch of links here correctly, then do two wrong. I hope you are doing as well when you get to be my age.

As to behind the times, I don't think that had happened yet when I wrote, but I haven't checked the time.

It's weird, though, typical of Wikidrama. Ottava does about everything possible to get blocked except for flooding the place with bot vandalism, and nothing happens. Then he rubs WizardOfOz the wrong way and gets an "infinite block."

It is enough to destroy one's faith in the Justice of the Wiki Way.

What? Really?

Never mind!

[SB_Johnny]

You know wikimarkup doesn't actually work on web forums, right? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

You're behind the times anyway.

Aw, SBJ, so I do a bunch of links here correctly, then do two wrong. I hope you are doing as well when you get to be my age.

Well, you could always just use the handy preview button, but then you'd run into the tl;dr problem. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Ottava]

Gotta love how M7, a friend of DJSasso's from Simple.Wikipedia as pointed out to me by various IRCers last night, proposed to reduce my block to a month and prevent me from working the confirmation.

How convenient. A guy with a pristine block log with far more edits than most people in the converstion is blocked for a fake claim of personal attacks in a community that doesn't hand out blocks as it is supposed to be a place welcoming all.

Not 24 hour block, but straight to indef and one month. Isn't that cute? I love revenge blocks quickly backed up by friends.



This is a good reason why those from tiny groups shouldn't be allowed to be Stewards. Such behavior is clearly reprehensible.

[SB_Johnny]

...

Ottava, aren't you starting to wonder why none of your "friends" haven't unblocked you yet, or at the very least left a note on your meta talk about your block?

Much as you might want it to be, the "Miss Incongeniality" award from WR isn't going to impress the young 'uns.

Several years ago, my wife did a long-weekend retreat at a catholic monastery and got a lot out of her time spent chilling with the nuns. You might want to consider something like that (hint: works better if you are honest with the abbot about what you need guidance about).

[Milton Roe]

Several years ago, my wife did a long-weekend retreat at a catholic monastery and got a lot out of her time spent chilling with the nuns. You might want to consider something like that (hint: works better if you are honest with the abbot about what you need guidance about).

Chilling.... with... the nuns..... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Now that's something I never thought of doing, I'll admit. I'll put this on my Bucket List, right behind visiting the South Pole. Should I make it to age 135, I might well get to it.

What do they say? Catty remarks about the RC patriarchy, one supposes?

[SB_Johnny]

What do they say? Catty remarks about the RC patriarchy, one supposes?

I didn't ask for details, but from the reports I got these nuns weren't taking orders from the pope. Our daughter was conceived shortly thereafter. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Ottava]

...

Ottava, aren't you starting to wonder why none of your "friends" haven't unblocked you yet, or at the very least left a note on your meta talk about your block?

As I said in IRC before I had to head out to drive back home - many people are hesitant to do it so early in the election because they expect retribution. They want enough positive supports to come in so last minute opposes don't affect their outcomes.

[SB_Johnny]

...

Ottava, aren't you starting to wonder why none of your "friends" haven't unblocked you yet, or at the very least left a note on your meta talk about your block?

As I said in IRC before I had to head out to drive back home - many people are hesitant to do it so early in the election because they expect retribution. They want enough positive supports to come in so last minute opposes don't affect their outcomes.

Ah, ok. Good friends, when it's not inconvenient. Low standards mean less disappointment?

[Abd]

Gotta love how M7, a friend of DJSasso's from Simple.Wikipedia as pointed out to me by various IRCers last night, proposed to reduce my block to a month and prevent me from working the confirmation.

How convenient. A guy with a pristine block log with far more edits than most people in the converstion is blocked for a fake claim of personal attacks in a community that doesn't hand out blocks as it is supposed to be a place welcoming all.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall. WMC, I'm sure, was shocked the first time he was blocked after being desysopped. I now see that my 2-hour block of Ottava, when he was my mentor, was an utterly intolerable insult to his sense of self. He was the Emperor, the "prime mover" of Wikiversity.

From the meta RfC on Ottava, he'd managed to be uncivil enough to get a dozen ordinary editors blocked, and he wasn't slowing down, he was accelerating.

Not 24 hour block, but straight to indef and one month. Isn't that cute? I love revenge blocks quickly backed up by friends.

Right. Improper. And you can yell "improper" all week long, but what will happen is that people will look at the record, and say, OMG, what took so long? That RfC is amazing.

Anyway, Ottava, you got it wrong. WOO didn't block you "indef," he blocked you infinite. M7 then started to talk to you about reducing it to a month. You blew him off. Ottava? A month (actually less than three weeks, probably)? With my perfect civility?

So he reblocked, setting the block at indef. That is actually a reduction, believe it or not. It's an implication that there is something that might be resolved, and he continued to suggest that if you revise your attitude, you might be unblcoked. Just not right now!

M7 was doing something fairly clever, I think. Tradition is to consult with the blocking admin before unblocking. WOO was in a bit of hot water, and had made a block-in-conflict, possibly. By resetting the block, M7 was telegraphing that a steward was involved, a highly trusted user, who was [i]not[/] involved. M7 isn't a pushover, easily intimidated. A FOO (Friend of Ottava) did vote No on M7 steward confirmation as a result. Like tossing a pebble at an elephant.

Ottava's goose is cooked. He made way too many enemies, accused too many people of all kinds of crimes, most of it fantasy, but it doesn't matter.

This is a good reason why those from tiny groups shouldn't be allowed to be Stewards. Such behavior is clearly reprehensible.

WOO was simply naive. He'd have been easy to influence with simple, civil discussion, I suspect. I was working on getting Guido unblocked when Guido basically attacked me for it, so I reversed my conclusion. The WMF might lose WOO over this, he may think that he was abused and not backed up. I saw some level of communication problem with him, he may be reading English with difficulty. Or he will learn and grow. WOO wasn't the problem.

[Ottava]

That RfC is amazing.

You mean the RfC that you fill with your rambles and everyone ignores?

[Abd]

Ottava, aren't you starting to wonder why none of your "friends" haven't unblocked you yet, or at the very least left a note on your meta talk about your block?

As I said in IRC before I had to head out to drive back home - many people are hesitant to do it so early in the election because they expect retribution. They want enough positive supports to come in so last minute opposes don't affect their outcomes.

Does Ottava really believe this? Is this what they are telling him? (If so, they are fair-weather "friends," for sure.)

Ottava has claimed that numerous stewards were going to save the day for him. They've never appeared. The stewards standing are all getting very high positives except one who will probably be removed, he wasn't active. That they would magically lose all that support because of one comment defending Ottava on his Talk page, or even an unblock, as long as it was remotely reasonable, that's crazy.

But, problem is, it wouldn't be remotely reasonable. See the meta RfC..

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Abd]

That RfC is amazing.

You mean the RfC that you fill with your rambles and everyone ignores?

mmm.... 21,451 words in the RfC. Abd's words: 4,281. Once again, Ottava lies.

[jayvdb]

Perhaps I was just naive and just being used by a guy who wanted power. Is that what you are trying to say?

Yes, that is it. You've summed it up very well. Thank you.

I hope that is sarcasm because I don't believe you were using me. I believe you were my friend.


I fought with Pathoschild in chat about Poetlister and he said he didn't get the email until a few weeks after we discussed it in chat and when he did it matched up with the time he was on vacation. I can believe most of his story about it and I don't feel that he didn't ignore the original. I still don't know your full place on it, or why both of you let him run instead of just blocking him.

It is all too confusing for me, and anything dealing with Poetlister is far too painful for me to think about.

My comment was laced with sarcasm, but not in the way you're thinking.

We were never friends. At best, accomplices in the free content movement. There are a few people in Wikimedia that I consider to be friends, but that friendship is developed over a long time, and grounded in respect.
If you "spread positive statements about [me]" for any other reason than that you believed your positive statements, you disgust me.

You protest way too much about Poetlister. Did he touch you?

Local consensus on Wikisource was that Poetlister was allowed on Wikisource. The English Wikisource checkusers were concerned about the emails he was sending, however we only had one report of this, by you, and you told me to keep you out of the public face of it. Had I taken the matter publicly to the Wikisource community, seeking a community ban due to Poetlister sending problematic emails, I had no way of knowing whether or not Poetlister would be able to tie this to you. If he had sent only one problematic email, to you, he would have known it was you who had informed the English Wikisource checkusers. You tied my hands.

[Ottava]

If you "spread positive statements about [me]" for any other reason than that you believed your positive statements, you disgust me.

Disgust you?

You came to me out of concern about various ethnic groups canvassing against you. You asked me to spread the word and help you out.


But yes, it is nice to see the real you. I think WR has seen this before - Cool Hand Luke, SirFozzie, etc. Pretending to be one kind of person to manipulate others.



That is really unhealthy for any community.

You protest way too much about Poetlister. Did he touch you?

Harassment is only physical?

I guess stalking laws and the rest are bs?



Somey, Jayvdb just made it clear that he feels only physical contact is capable of harming others. This is a guy who supposedly sits at the top of a community with a duty to protect other people from harmful actions.

Why is Jayvdb not booted for such comments like the other Arbs who started pushing such radical and nasty moves that show that they are incapable of fixing the problems inherent in Wikipedia?

Local consensus on Wikisource was that Poetlister was allowed on Wikisource.

Local consensus said that you are allowed to use multiple accounts to harass people through email while pretending to be different people?

I sure missed that one. But it seems obvious that you are just making up shit right now. Your statements above reveal that you aren't acting ethically, that you don't care about protecting others, and that you probably used Poetlister to manipulate him for some agenda.


When you were giving Poetlister adminshp on Wikisource, what kind of deal did you make with him? Since he is a sock master, how many of his socks did you get him to vote for you on Wikipedia?

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[SB_Johnny]

That RfC is amazing.

You mean the RfC that you fill with your rambles and everyone ignores?

mmm.... 21,451 words in the RfC. Abd's words: 4,281. Once again, Ottava lies.

That makes 20% of the text there (out of a lot more than 5 people chipping in).

Are you trying to take the title from Ottava for "most accusations of lying"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Ottava]

That RfC is amazing.

You mean the RfC that you fill with your rambles and everyone ignores?

mmm.... 21,451 words in the RfC. Abd's words: 4,281. Once again, Ottava lies.

That makes 20% of the text there (out of a lot more than 5 people chipping in).

Are you trying to take the title from Ottava for "most accusations of lying"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Abd is fibbing here as from after October 25th he is the only real dominant person there.

He resurrected a dead RfC and people ignored him, as I said.

[Lar]

I thought this thread was about Pathoschild?

I may be confused though... I was going by the thread title. Can we split off the Ottava vs. everybody else cage match part?

[SB_Johnny]

I thought this thread was about Pathoschild?

I may be confused though... I was going by the thread title. Can we split off the Ottava vs. everybody else cage match part?

Or just rename to "Ottava doesn't like Pathoschild", subtitle "which is probably good for Pathoschild", and see if there's anything not relevant to that.

[jayvdb]

If you "spread positive statements about [me]" for any other reason than that you believed your positive statements, you disgust me.

Disgust you?

You came to me out of concern about various ethnic groups canvassing against you. You asked me to spread the word and help you out.

I came to you? Bullshit. logs, or it didn't happen, mofo. There is the well publicised Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Possible ethnic block voting in ArbCom elections and you came to me privately regarding Sandy Georgia's public 'abstain' vote. I wrote a mini essay to you, which I said you may pass on to Sandy Georgia, in full or abridged. This ended up being public at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Jayvdb#SandyGeorgia.27s_comment_on_sourcing.

Again, if you said or did anything for any other reason other than that you believed it was the right thing to do, you are the problem. Do what thou wilt.

You protest way too much about Poetlister. Did he touch you?

Harassment is only physical?

I guess stalking laws and the rest are bs?

Somey, Jayvdb just made it clear that he feels only physical contact is capable of harming others. This is a guy who supposedly sits at the top of a community with a duty to protect other people from harmful actions.

perhaps you have not heard of the phrase "he touched me". You act like he touched you, which is assault. In truth, he emailed you, never once suggesting anything sexual in nature to you; instead he pretended to be a real female person, and you knew he was lying from the outset. Why are you claiming to be violated? he has violated people, but you are not one of them, and you are callous to pretend you are one of them. Had you not tied my hands, he would likely have been banned from Wikisource in mid 2010; instead, he was banned from Wikisource in early 2011. Only to move on to Wikiversity, and unknown and untracked accounts elsewhere. Progress indeed.

This post has been edited by jayvdb:

[Ottava]

I came to you? Bullshit. logs, or it didn't happen, mofo. There is the well publicised Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Possible ethnic block voting in ArbCom elections and you came to me privately regarding Sandy Georgia's public 'abstain' vote. I wrote a mini essay to you, which I said you may pass on to Sandy Georgia, in full or abridged. This ended up being public at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Jayvdb#SandyGeorgia.27s_comment_on_sourcing.

Everyone can read it and definitely see that I was speaking on your behalf, not doing it on my own.

I find it interesting how you say "logs or it didn't happen" yet say what happened without logs. Cute bait and switch. And, everyone knows that the only reason why you came to Wikiversity is to build up more "street cred" and support to get on ArbCom. I find it interesting that you are trying to deny what most people do. Are you ashamed? Or are you afraid that it makes you look bad because of your nasty approach now as a defense mechanism because you know you really, really fucked up with Poetlister and desperately want it to go away?

perhaps you have not heard of the phrase "he touched me". You act like he touched you, which is assault. In truth, he emailed you, never once suggesting anything sexual in nature to you;

More bait and switch.

I said he harassed me. You add a sexual nature to it which is only in your own imagination. Your addition of a sexual nature is a standard tactic to embarrass and demean someone in hope that they go away. It is a ploy used by those who have no legitimate response.

Had you not tied my hands, he would likely have been banned from Wikisource in mid 2010;

Ahahahaha, yes, because I made you not block him when you had evidence of mass socking even without the Longfellow information. I also made you help him run for adminship. Is it coincidence that Pathoschild is saying that you never shared with him my emails or anything really on Poetlister in the beginning?

A little odd how you keep a fellow CU in the dark about your activities. Or will you have some new story where you blame others?

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Sarcasticidealist]

I thought this thread was about Pathoschild?

No, I'm pretty sure we've moved on to the parent.

[jayvdb]

.. Is it coincidence that Pathoschild is saying that you never shared with him my emails or anything really on Poetlister in the beginning?

A little odd how you keep a fellow CU in the dark about your activities. Or will you have some new story where you blame others?

Where does Pathoschild say that? I accepted the blame for the communications breakdown wrt Poetlister.

[Ottava]

.. Is it coincidence that Pathoschild is saying that you never shared with him my emails or anything really on Poetlister in the beginning?

A little odd how you keep a fellow CU in the dark about your activities. Or will you have some new story where you blame others?

Where does Pathoschild say that? I accepted the blame for the communications breakdown wrt Poetlister.

Accept blame? By not removing all CU access cross Wiki like you should and instead using others to help you harass? And then posting logs at Wikiversity having nothing to do with the site and only putting them there because you know there are enough trolls to let you get away with your harassment?

I've sent all private IRC logs where you both say that you were going to deal with Poetlister back in June along with statements where you repeatedly said you were looking out for me and trying to help me. Hopefully, they will be sent to the Ombudsman with other information for a thorough investigation.

You've helped many sock masters, abused a lot of power, and harassed a lot of people. I really don't know why you think you are a decent person and it baffles me why you are still around. I guess you have no shame.

[SB_Johnny]

I've sent all private IRC logs where you both say that you were going to deal with Poetlister back in June along with statements where you repeatedly said you were looking out for me and trying to help me. Hopefully, they will be sent to the Ombudsman with other information for a thorough investigation.

Since you brought it up, be sure to send them a link to your brilliant and masterful interpretation of your s00p3r seekr1t chat with jayvdb. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Ottava]

I've sent all private IRC logs where you both say that you were going to deal with Poetlister back in June along with statements where you repeatedly said you were looking out for me and trying to help me. Hopefully, they will be sent to the Ombudsman with other information for a thorough investigation.

Since you brought it up, be sure to send them a link to your brilliant and masterful interpretation of your s00p3r seekr1t chat with jayvdb. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

SB Johnny, it is clear from your above actions that you wish to host something on Wikiversity beyond any logic solely because you want to harass.

You are a sick, pathetic individual and you really need help. You have no purpose on the WMF and you have no academic background. You are just a troll like all the other corrupt WMF admin who contribute nothing but bile.

[jayvdb]

Hopefully, they will be sent to the Ombudsman with other information for a thorough investigation.

Why hopefully? You can email them directly, removing all need for hope.

[Ottava]

Hopefully, they will be sent to the Ombudsman with other information for a thorough investigation.

Why hopefully? You can email them directly, removing all need for hope.

Because I am not the one filing the complaint. You've fucked up far more than lying to me about dealing with Poetlister's socks.


Since you like posting private conversations, you wont have a problem with me posting where you lied:

Session Start: Fri Jun 11 23:59:56 2010
Session Ident: jayvdb
01[23:59] <Ottava> Amy Emberson is the name
Session Time: Sat Jun 12 00:00:00 2010
[00:00] <jayvdb> hmm. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)
01[00:00] <Ottava> I'll forward you the longer email
01[00:01] <Ottava> sent
01[00:01] <Ottava> "If you ever want to confirm my identity, e-mail me on (Mod note: email address redacted at members request that seemed reasonable to me. Not that I care about this dreary Wikipedian shit. Of course any mod who lowers themself to know what Ottava is actually on about can feel free to change it.) that address can receive but not send."
[00:02] <jayvdb> im looking for hints around "distantcentauri", and not seeing much. but often the lines between the dots take a while to appear
01[00:02] <Ottava> He is probably one of about 7 sock puppets that I forwarded information on to the Stewards list. I haven't sent anything about Horse, Kohs, or Peter Damian but mostly because they use throw away accounts and have dozens of them
[00:03] <jayvdb> have you contacted alumni.lse.ac.uk ?
01[00:03] <Ottava> No, but I did confirm through my connections that it is a real name and real person
[00:04] <jayvdb> ok. I might let them know ... unless you would like to do it ?
01[00:04] <Ottava> You can let whoever you know. You can read what I said to the Steward list.
[00:04] <jayvdb> alumni accounts often have this problem
01[00:04] <Ottava> "All I ask is that measures are done that if anything happens that I am not connected to it, or some time passes so there would not be an immediate connection."
[00:04] <jayvdb> im not a steward, so I cant see it
01[00:05] <Ottava> should say is if measures are done
01[00:05] <Ottava> but yeah
01[00:05] <Ottava> I forwarded you what I sent them
[00:05] <jayvdb> *nod*
01[00:05] <Ottava> You can always just ask j.delanoy for such stuff.
01[00:05] <Ottava> He has permission to disseminate anything I tell him.
[00:06] <jayvdb> k
[00:06] <jayvdb> thx
01[00:06] <Ottava> I tend to give him a weekly update on information I collect on various socks and the such
01[00:07] <Ottava> Recently, the chicago public library kid has been running amok but not able to do much
01[00:07] <Ottava> Oh, and he added me to ED, which was amusing.
[00:07] <jayvdb> can I forward to funcs-en the email you addressed to the stewards
01[00:08] <Ottava> You can forward it as long as they abide by the same conditions
01[00:08] <Ottava> I don't want any connection to it
[00:08] <jayvdb> im currently investigating another set of Poetlister socks
[00:08] <jayvdb> *nod*

[00:14] <jayvdb> on a quick related note, are you abiding by the ban; not socking, etc?
01[00:14] <Ottava> I don't sock and you can see my IP
01[00:14] <Ottava> I have no problem with people check
01[00:14] <Ottava> checking
[00:14] <jayvdb> *nod* just checking.
01[00:14] <Ottava> and the Stewards can confirm
[00:15] <jayvdb> I expect it would be very annoying at times for you, esp as you are keeping close with the community
01[00:15] <Ottava> You can ask j.delanoy to do a check if you want
[00:15] <jayvdb> I worry; I would hate to see you added to the list of "problems"

[SB_Johnny]

SB Johnny, it is clear from your above actions that you wish to host something on Wikiversity beyond any logic solely because you want to harass.

Nah, not my dog and not my fight. I just think it's funny to watch you try to interpret a document to say the opposite of what it says, then yell "Q.E.D.!" and proceed to hold your hands over your ears saying "la, la, la, I can't hear you, you're a troll and I've already said Q.E.D.!" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Then you wonder why people generally assume that your accusations can't be taken at face value. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Ottava]

SB Johnny, it is clear from your above actions that you wish to host something on Wikiversity beyond any logic solely because you want to harass.

Nah, not my dog and not my fight. I just think it's funny to watch you try to interpret a document to say the opposite of what it says, then yell "Q.E.D.!" and proceed to hold your hands over your ears saying "la, la, la, I can't hear you, you're a troll and I've already said Q.E.D.!" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Then you wonder why people generally assume that your accusations can't be taken at face value. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

How cute.

Lets see, I wrote the statement, have multiple degrees in interpreting written language, and work professionally in writing, and you, a known ass hole who would do whatever it takes to try and harass me.

It has already been proven that you are very wrong and your arguments about something like that which has nothing to do with Wikiversity shows that you are one of the worst offenders of all that is wrong with the WMF.

Why are you even on Wikiversity when you lack any real educational background, resent academia in general, and do nothing but use adminship status that you gained against community consensus to harm other users? Why are you even posting on Wikipedia Review when you represent everything wrong with the WMF?



Somey, why is such a troll like SB Johnny tolerated?

[RMHED]

Somey, why is such a troll like SB Johnny tolerated?

Oh, the irony!

[Milton Roe]

Somey, why is such a troll like SB Johnny tolerated?

Oh, the irony!

Yes. The answer is that we were going to kick him out, Ottava, but some of us actually felt sorry for him. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[SB_Johnny]

Somey, why is such a troll like SB Johnny tolerated?

Oh, the irony!

Yes. The answer is that we were going to kick him out, Ottava, but some of us actually felt sorry for him. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

I thought it was my startling resemblance to Ronald Reagan. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Meanwhile, Ottava's campaign against Pathoschild fails. Go figure. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[jayvdb]

Because I am not the one filing the complaint. You've fucked up far more than lying to me about dealing with Poetlister's socks.

You might like to file that complaint yourself, because others might be full of bluster and not follow through.

Since you like posting private conversations, you wont have a problem with me posting where you lied:

In your haste, you have published the name of the innocent victim.
Can the name be removed from the post, or pulled out of Google results please.
You have also provided Poetlister a bit of an update. Cheers.
You could have achieved the same outcome without doing any of the above, if your first priority was to protect the victims and you were a bit more cautious.

[00:08] <jayvdb> im currently investigating another set of Poetlister socks

You have assumed that these socks were on Wikisource, and that they were confirmed to be socks, and that they were socks which are deemed to be inappropriate according to some policy. Which policy? Again, you don't even know which project was involved.

[Ottava]

In your haste, you have published the name of the innocent victim.
Can the name be removed from the post, or pulled out of Google results please.
You have also provided Poetlister a bit of an update. Cheers.
You could have achieved the same outcome without doing any of the above, if your first priority was to protect the victims and you were a bit more cautious.

[00:08] <jayvdb> im currently investigating another set of Poetlister socks

You have assumed that these socks were on Wikisource, and that they were confirmed to be socks, and that they were socks which are deemed to be inappropriate according to some policy. Which policy? Again, you don't even know which project was involved.

1. Her name has been published before and was sent to Somey et al when it was revealed Poetlister ran for admnship under you watch.

2. "another set" implies that you considered the set of three Poetlister accounts that emailed me from wikisource as a set of socks. You admit he was socking there and did nothing. At the very least, as a CU you would have pointed out that Poetlister was using Wikisource email on multiple names to harass people and ask for community input. You didn't.

3. Your end statements are dodging from the above problem, which is all you ever do. You make up stuff, lie to people, give false promises, and then deflect when you are called on it. How does it feel to be the source of the problem instead of anything even remotely close to the solution?

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[jayvdb]

In your haste, you have published the name of the innocent victim.
Can the name be removed from the post, or pulled out of Google results please.
You have also provided Poetlister a bit of an update. Cheers.
You could have achieved the same outcome without doing any of the above, if your first priority was to protect the victims and you were a bit more cautious.

[00:08] <jayvdb> im currently investigating another set of Poetlister socks

You have assumed that these socks were on Wikisource, and that they were confirmed to be socks, and that they were socks which are deemed to be inappropriate according to some policy. Which policy? Again, you don't even know which project was involved.

1. Her name has been published before and was sent to Somey et al when it was revealed Poetlister ran for admnship under you watch.

It looks like you are the first person to mention it in that thread, or am I missing something?

2. "another set" implies that you considered the set of three Poetlister accounts that emailed me from wikisource as a set of socks. You admit he was socking there and did nothing. At the very least, as a CU you would have pointed out that Poetlister was using Wikisource email on multiple names to harass people and ask for community input. You didn't.

I'm sorry but I only saw one email from you, where you pointed out one already known sock.

3. Your end statements are dodging from the above problem, which is all you ever do. You make up stuff, lie to people, give false promises, and then deflect when you are called on it. How does it feel to be the source of the problem instead of anything even remotely close to the solution?

You have incorrectly assumed a few things about the sentence you quoted. I'm not going to tell you how you are wrong - I have shown you were you have made assumptions that are beyond your knowledge. Arbcom, stewards, the ombudsman committee, etc are all welcome to investigate this because they will be shown how your assumptions and haste have got the better of you.

[thekohser]

...
01[00:02] <Ottava> He is probably one of about 7 sock puppets that I forwarded information on to the Stewards list. I haven't sent anything about Horse, Kohs, or Peter Damian but mostly because they use throw away accounts and have dozens of them
...

Why is it that my name has to appear in the worst of threads?

[Ottava]

I'm sorry but I only saw one email from you, where you pointed out one already known sock.

If you are going to lie, don't do so so blatantly.



From the chat, everyone can see that John acknowledged the email with Amy Emberson.

Yet here is this reply:

from John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
date Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:54 PM
subject Re: Wikisource e-mail - Poetlister

Thanks for forwarding this; it may help find a few more socks of his.
Do you mind if I forward it to functionaries-en ?

What email did he reply to? This one from Bedivere, not mentioning Amy at all:


From: Bedivere <distantcentauri@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 7:47 AM
Subject: Wikisource e-mail
To: Ottava Rima <17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu>


OK, I'll buy it. What's your e-mail address please?

John, everything you've posted in this whole thread has been a lie. This has been exposed over and over. You keep digging and you keep lying. There is something seriously wrong with you. Are you unable to keep from lying? Is it a pathological condition?

You also forwarded a 3rd email not of the two mentioned above to the CU list on December 30, 2010 2:20:57 PM PST apparently with subjec Fwd: Wikisource e-mail - Poetlister. I was just told of that and had it confirmed by multiple people who are disturbed by your blatant lies.


Now, other emails John had:

1.

From: Poet <ig26yh@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 6:22 AM
Subject: I was very intrigued by your WR comment

Ottava

I was very interested to see that you have discovered that I was "outed" by amateurs rather than professional intelligence people. I know that as a conscientious scholar, you must have good evidence for that statement, to make it so positively. Can you please let me have that evidence.

As you know, I was never caught by checkuser (Kelly Martin initially claimed I was, but later admitted that she'd been pressured into a miscarriage of justice). I was only caught by the illegal hacking of my e-mails. It has been suggested that this hacking must be the work of professionals, so it is obviously an extremely important breakthrough in the quest for the criminals to know that they were indeed amateurs.

Best regards

Poetlister

2.

Poetlister <poetlister@googlemail.com>
date Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 6:33 PM
subject Wikisource e-mail
mailed-by wikimedia.org

How do I find these good quotes? Loads of practice on Wikiquote!

Poetlister

--
This e-mail was sent by Poetlister to Ottava Rima by the "E-mail user" function at Wikisource.

There are some others, but I've already done more to prove that John is a complete and utter liar.

[Milton Roe]

...
01[00:02] <Ottava> He is probably one of about 7 sock puppets that I forwarded information on to the Stewards list. I haven't sent anything about Horse, Kohs, or Peter Damian but mostly because they use throw away accounts and have dozens of them
...

Why is it that my name has to appear in the worst of threads?

Because you, Greg Kohs, represent maximum danger to Wikipedia. Worse than Grawp. Had admin sock Cool3 (T-C-L-K-R-D) not been pwned, the entire WP site would have eventually become one walled garden, festooned with nothing but information about NATO airforces and bombing Bosnia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) Instead of the tasteful penis pictures it now contains. YOU KNOW THIS. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) Jimbo knows this. Even Ottava knows this.

How dumb do you think we all are? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

[jayvdb]

I'm sorry but I only saw one email from you, where you pointed out one already known sock.

If you are going to lie, don't do so so blatantly.

My apologies.

You sent me two emails which linked..

Bedivere = distantcentauri@googlemail.com = Amy [redacted] = amy[redacted]@alumni.lse.ac.uk

All one sock; already known about. The new information that you provided was the new name and new email address being used by the same sock.

And you forwarded to me that third email from Poetlister using an already known email address, and presumably sent directly to you rather than via Wikimedia servers.

recall that you very recently said:

"another set" implies that you considered the set of three Poetlister accounts that emailed me from wikisource as a set of socks.

There were three emails forwarded by you, containing three email addresses, regarding two socks.
And both Bedivere & Poetlister were already publicly declared socks, known to just about everyone.
Consequently I hope you can see that your deduction about the meaning of "another set" is hardly ground breaking.

The primary problem was the use of someone elses email address.
In regards to me not doing anything about it, that is an overstatement, but I have accepted that I did not do enough. I also accept that people are free to come to their own conclusions about it as I refuse to provide an explanation in public or to people I don't trust, which unfortunately now includes you. If you want someone else to review my actions or inactions, you will need to request that from Arbcom (Audit subcommittee), the Ombudsman, or similar.