A message from Ottava Options

[A Horse With No Name]

I was asked to post this message by Ottava -- I hope this doesn't run afoul of any WR rules, given Ottava's status here.

This is what he says:

From Ottava Rima:

I was talk page blocked by John Vandenberg for "outing". The information I revealed was direct references to information found in my own edit history, most of it on my own talk page, and was never oversighted. It was public information that does not fall within oversighting material and it dealt with a name that was known by ArbCom not to be the individual's real name.

When that same user I "outed" actually used Eco's real name, that was oversighted, but not one oversighter thought my statements deserved to be because of the above. When Moreschi used my real information, that was oversighted. Neither of these people had anything negative happen to them although blocks are standard for such cases.

ArbCom has failed to act in this case, especially when there is evidence that should overturn the block. Perhaps it has something to do that the info revealed that Risker only told ArbCom about who Unitanode was but left out the multiple sock puppets, the restart accounts that were being censured, the accounts with previous fights, and the accounts that revealed he was edit warring and POV pushing on articles like Barack Obama (as his blog shows, he was quite the conservative McCain promoter even though he continues to claim he is a "liberal democrat" on Wiki).

You'd think someone lying about someone else as they abusively sock and violate every part of the socking and cleanstart policy would get desysopped. Lara was desysopped, after all.

[MZMcBride]

The issue with SDJ wasn't that he started multiple accounts or even the lack of transparency about previous accounts necessarily, it was (and is) the new accounts getting involved in the same disputes with the same people without everyone at the table realizing the history.

"Unitanode" posting an inflammatory message can be interpreted completely differently from, say, "SDJ" posting one. The reactions by others can and do vary based on which account is posting something. There's very little direct overlap between the accounts in terms of similar page postings (almost surprisingly so). And the timeline of the accounts indicates, just as SDJ noted, that they were operated sequentially, never concurrently. However if you look at the discussions on-wiki, some people clearly knew who the person behind the account was and others didn't. This prior knowledge (or lack of it) has a big impact on discussion tone and content.

While it's not something that's easily preventable on a site like Wikipedia, it is unethical and unfair to other contributors to participate in this manner. That was and continues to be my issue. A few days ago, Unitanode posted some explanation on his user page, which seemed like a reasonable measure all around and one that I applaud (though if he could have left out the BLP-skirting commentary, it would've been better).

[wikiwhistle]

The issue with SDJ wasn't that he started multiple accounts or even the lack of transparency about previous accounts necessarily, it was (and is) the new accounts getting involved in the same disputes with the same people without everyone at the table realizing the history.

Even if he's only known them with one account, he will pester people and slag them off again and again just if they happen to have a different opinion to him. I think that's the real reason he kept having to ditch his accounts and get new ones; because he kept getting in arguments on wiki and being annoying and obnoxious. Others have agreed with me about him too.

You're a joke. A conduct RfC? For what?

I would contribute to it. You hastle people for no reason, again and again. You are obnoxious and intimidating. You would be o.k. in an RfC now though because people pity you over the Ecoleetage hastle you had- which was probably a normal person snapping at your obnoxious and intimidating behaviour.