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.

I thought it was my startling resemblance to Ronald Reagan.

Meanwhile, Ottava's campaign against Pathoschild fails. Go figure.

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


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?

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


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


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.

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

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:





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.




2.




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

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. Instead of the tasteful penis pictures it now contains. YOU KNOW THIS. Jimbo knows this. Even Ottava knows this.

How dumb do you think we all are?

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:



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.

John before



John Now



Still lying. At least you admit you were lying before. In the above, there is proof you had three emails 1. verified through an email reply, 2. verified by your mention in chat and 3. an email you forwarded to CUs after Longfellow was exposed that was neither of those two.

But you admit your claim of 2 magically becomes 3 when you later say in the same post: "There were three emails forwarded by you". You are really unable to keep your story straight as you continue to try and lie your way out of this one instead of admitting that you fucked up, lied to me, lied to many others, and knowingly allowed Poetlister to continue to abuse Wikisource.

And I sent you at least 2 others but there is no secondary "confirmation" I can quote to prove that not only you saw and read them, but you spoke as if you were doing something about them like you did for the three. At least five is a far cry from "one", as even three is.



No, the information I provided was Poetlister was currently and actively using socks, which meant a CU check would be good followed by blocks of all accounts because of the repeated harassment. A CU with a posting to the Wikisource boards to ask the members what should be done with all of the found socks would have been the minimum action.

Sending the information to other CUs, global and local, would also have been the minimum action.




NO! The primary problem was that he was using Wikisource to email harass multiple users and you did nothing except encourage him to run for adminship on a clean account!!!!!

How do you not fucking get it?!?!

Why on earth would you share information like that with Ottava Rima, of all people?

Because Torquemada is dead?

An exchange from the old "Hollywood Squares" game show:

Peter Marshall: Charley, you've just decided to grow strawberries. Are you going to get any during your first year?

Charley Weaver: Of course not, Peter. I'm too busy growing strawberries!

Well, it depends if your wife likes strawberries...

Thanks, Milt. I just wanted to confirm. Yours has been the best post on this miserable thread.

Somebody didn't get their money's worth, I'd say...Somebody else currently isn't getting their money's worth either!

Well said.

Why did I share what I said to him in IRC? It was in June 2010, and I was too busy in real life to know that he was off the rails, other than on enWP. I didn't even log the IRC conv., but I do recall it as Ottava has quoted it. Lesson learnt.

Checkusers share their findings with non-checkusers all the time, probably most commonly on IRC.