User talk:Newyorkbrad - Wikipedia


2 people in discussion

Article Images
  Hello, Newyorkbrad! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice.

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup. Note: this is the same message from last week, but you are receiving it because you have not removed your name from the list yet! Please do so if you still plan on participating. iMatthew talk at 22:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The weekend now being unambiguously, globaly, certainly over, I'm going to have to insist that the Audit Subcommittee release a statement in a specified timeframe. If the comittee cannot release a statement within the next 24 hours, I'm going to mark the comittee as historical and sugest a return to the "loud shouting and backchannel influence peddling" method of audit. Hipocrite (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Committee members are actively working on draft responses on each of the pending matters. We have internal consensus on the outcome of each matter and want to make sure that our written output carefully addresses the concerns raised in each. The reports will be finalized and issued as soon as possible. You may express your displeasure with the delays that have taken place as loudly as you like—I certainly am not pleased with them myself—but you are not authorized to "mark the committee as historical" and are specifically instructed not to do so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Personally, I would have marked the subcommitted "deceased" or "comatose" rather than "historical", but don't worry Hipo, I am quite sure now that the elections are drawing to their close we shall soon have a response, albeit not the desired one.  Giano  17:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
The election has nothing to do with the matter, and the bad-faith assumption is unwelcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have opened a case to attempt to get some clarity on the mandate of the Audit Subcomittee. The case can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Audit_Subcommittee. You are a named party only in your capacity as a member of the Committee. Hipocrite (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Responded there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

...and I'm sorry that my technical limitations prohibited me from gas bagging a bit more with you on the skype call the other day - I'm actually uploading the first section (which is all I have) at the moment - so it'll be online shortly. As well as thanking you for making time to participate in said chat, I wondered if I might steal a couple of minutes of your time... I've recently begun work at Wikipedia:Child protection which I hope can (really really slowly) grow into a useful resource - and I wondered if you could briefly relate your experience of existing NYC Meetup practice in regard to these questions? - It occurs to me that we don't as a project overall really know quite how things are working around the place, and I recall that you mentioned meeting younger wikipedians at a Meetup - your answer could well be as simple as 'all meetups have happened in public places, and the younger wikipedians were with a carer' - but any more comments / thoughts / meat on the bone would be appreciated :-) Merry christmas too, btw... Privatemusings (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

the podcast is online - and it'll be a miracle if this works - but it may appear on the right now? Privatemusings (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
ps. as you know, the general topic of child protection has been discussed over on Wikipedia Review too - would you mind if I cross-post there? Privatemusings (talk) 05:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
well the file was up for a few min.s before it got deleted - I think it'll be back online before too long... it's a good listen, I think - revealing and interesting - though your public will have to wait a little longer before they can share ;-) (ping me if you'd like a copy of my file to have a listen - Awadewit is working on editing the whole thing for publication at the mo... Privatemusings (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
ps. (and what I inteded to ask from the get go, really!) - I'm looking forward to the essay / bit of work you've done in regard to advice for younger wikipedians - is it on the wiki somewhere by any chance? - or do you prefer to get it up to snuff offline before posting? - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
fyi... Privatemusings (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you often have these conversations where you respond to yourself six times? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

no. Privatemusings (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
well sometimes. Privatemusings (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
but not often - I mean I'm not crazy. Privatemusings (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
really - I'm not, I just get a bit or a roll, and you know.... Privatemusings (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
...end up posting over and over again. Privatemusings (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
It's a worry. Privatemusings (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for releasing the report. It is difficult for any comittee to write a document. I apologize for being such a bother through the process, and merely hope that no one holds it against anyone. Hipocrite (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your note. If your concern has been addressed, it would be helpful if you would withdraw your request for arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Already done. Can I just delete the whole request? Hipocrite (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
A clerk (or unrecused arbitrator) should do that, but I'll ping their mailing list. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Would you please confirm for me that the email I sent you with my long list of questions for the AUSC was forwarded to other members of the committee?

And could I please have a copy of it? I neglected to make one. I'm very sorry about the bother involved in scrounging it up, and I wouldn't ask if it wasn't important to me. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes to your first question, and I'll check for it when I have a moment to the second. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Re your response to my note on Kurt's talk page, I just wanted to clarify that my message was an attempt to keep drama to a minimum by pointing out previous discussions to some folks who might not otherwise know. I've been hanging around here long enough to see the same (or similar) discussions pop up with different characters pretty regularly. It seems pretty common for folks to think they're the first ones to say something about the subject...which of course isn't true. My comment wasn't really directed at you.  Frank  |  talk  20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I understand, but thanks for your note. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

You may be right, and I don't plan to take this much further for the next day or so. I just want to have all the ducks in a row in case his reply is consistent with his recent activities. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. Thanks for responding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am wondering if arbcom has a plan for when a single user has managed to get in a position where the entire active arbcom roster needs to recuse themselves? Please believe me when I say that is a sincere curiosity of mine, and I am not trying to make any point or criticism by asking this. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 01:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't know of any case on-wiki in which this has happened, and there's no procedural for addressing it. (I can make various arguments for how it should be addressed if it ever comes up, but hopefully the matter will remain academic.) As a point of interest, however, there are analogues to this situation in real-world courts. Cases arise sometimes in which all the judges of a court are disqualified from participating, ranging from cases in which a disgruntled litigant sues all the judges for damages, to cases involving the court as an institution, such as disputes involving the validity of a salary increase for all the judges in the entire court system. In these circumstances, some court arrange for judges to be assigned temporarily from other courts, while in other circumstances the court will invoke the "rule of necessity," which provides that a judge who would otherwise be recused can nonetheless decide the case when otherwise no judge would be available. There's further discussion of this issue, at least insofar as it's handled in the United States, in the mainspace article recusal, which I wrote much of (although I see that I wrote much of it early in my wiki-career before I adopted best practices as to referencing). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, that puts my mind at ease. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 01:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Having observed the above comment, I must agree that recusal is indeed a fascinating subject from a purely academic point of view. In actuality, much of the judicial system is. Beyond that, the WP Dispute Resolution process is itself an interesting microcosmic system that has developed from a mixture of various legal and pseudolegislative ideals. Indeed, a recent discussion regarding the propriety and efficacy of splitting the WP Arbitration Committee into multiple panels for specific cases reminded me of the dichotomy between the U.S. Supreme Court, which always meets as a plenary body, and the newly created Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which does sit in panels (as do the Supreme Courts of Pakistan, India, and Ireland). In any event, it's an interesting example of the similarities between on-wiki and off-wiki considerations. —Beneficence 06:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
If I had to guess at what would happen if most arbitrators decided to recuse on this case, it'd be that some old arbitrators get recalled for the purpose of settling just this case. That'd be ironic in several ways in this situation, not least that it would require the folks who essentially punted multiple times over the last few years to come back and try again. Nathan T 02:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
More likely given the timing that it would be deferred to the new arbitrators who will be appointed in a few days. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Suppose that's true, given the timeframe. Thought new arbs were typically appointed on the first? Nathan T 03:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Usually appointed around Christmas and officially take office on January 1st, but they can use that week to get up to speed on whatever cases are pending. (I remember writing two decisions in my first couple of days as an arbitrator, which was less impressive than it looked because I had them written in my head beforehand.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Not to mention that most of us would either (a) have to recuse because of prior involvement or (b) make up some excuse to avoid it. If we did take it the case would be over in two days, for better or for worse. Mackensen (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
No offense intended with my "punted" comment, by the way - I think you both should have permanent seats, although there's a chance that would violate some international convention on human rights. Nathan T 03:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm sure you meant that in the best possible way, but I'm enjoying retirement thank you very much ;). Mackensen (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Since no article was harmed in the making of this wiki-theatre, perhaps ArbCom will be smart enough to punt, under the theory that Wikipedia is not therapy or any other type of counseling. People have interpersonal disputes. We can't solve them. Eventually if they become annoying enough, the community will pressure the disputants to STFU. This isn't a job for ArbCom. Jehochman Talk 04:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

you dreamer, Jehochman....--Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

What three characters were included on typewriter keyboards but are not to be found on computer keyboards? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

That depends on the typewriter, but typically ¢, ½ and ¼ were on most keyboards. IIRC, Selectrics also had a ± on them. — Coren (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

How can you vote this way when there are clear factual inaccuracies that have yet to been addressed?

  • [1] Is wrong. It started with the Persian Empire page. The RfAr was even called Persian Empire. The claims about there being a cabal was based around Persian Empire. Just because they managed to defy consensus multiple times and edit war it out of existence does not mean that it wasn't a dispute. I started three straw polls that said not to delete the page and two RfCs concluded with no consensus to delete the page. There was consistent edit warring and I posted at the edit warring noticeboard and the page was protected multiple times. This edit warring involved the people I accused of meat puppetry and were present in multiple discussions that were unrelated but with statements in each referring to others or off Wiki matters. Furthermore, Wizardman even stated multiple times publicly that I was correct in the content dispute, and he did not post this nor did he recuse from the case involving it (one of two necessary recusals).
  • [2] "including those from fields in which Ottava is not an expert" - I can show you the dissertation I am currently editing dealing with French linguistic theory that discusses both Saussure and Derrida, which reinforces my background and my argument that is used as a claim that I talk about things outside of my field. Furthermore, this all fell under Philosophy of language, which is something I can prove to be an expert in (and this shows a relationship). Furthermore, Samuel Johnson is someone I definitely know and Lexicography is a major part of Linguistics.
  • [3] A CU was taken. I already asked CUs I know to check the log and verify - they stated that Fowler was checked. I was told directly on IRC that there was more than enough evidence. Furthermore, Fowler even came to the ArbCom case and started claiming I didn't know English. Is that "criticism"? Because that is the things I don't accept. What am I supposed to do? Say "oh, you are right, I don't know the very basics of English?" Many admin warned Fowler over his actions and there were multiple topic ban proposals about his actions at FAC. That was in the evidence.
  • [4] - Where is his deletion of the RfC I filed against Risker for sock puppetry? This was a major dispute between us two and part of the case. Moreschi is a party because of it. Where is his edit warring and then warning to block me at Ludovico Ariosto when he was already making statements about content? That is two major abuses of ops.
  • [5] Where is the statement that the three recent blocks were overturned? Where is the statement that no RfC was ever filed against me? Where is the statement that the restricting admin even stated after the evidence was posted that he would lift the restrictions?

These are five major factual inaccuracies. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your items (1), (4), and (5) do not reflect inaccuracies in the decision. They do reflect that the decision does not mention every item of evidence, but no decision does, and I believe the decision being adopted gets the gist of the case quite right, including both the positive and negative aspects of your participation.
I see (3) as a minor point unrelated to the main issues in the case.
Your point (2) may have merit and I will look into it further, but a change to this paragraph would not affect the outcome of the case.
Please read again the comments I have made in the course of the decision, including those in which I pointed out that you would be welcome back on Wikipedia if you can manage to sand down the sharper edges of your conduct. As you have probably heard by now, I'm hesitant to ban virtually any serious contributor from Wikipedia, to the point that an essay was written mocking me for my leniency, so it was with great unhappiness that I found myself in agreement with the outcome of this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
50% of a truth is not a truth. It is a half-truth, which is a type of lie. And if three is a "minor point" then it doesn't belong there. And the sharper edges of my conduct? So far, you have proven that there were three things with nothing strong enough for any admin to want to block. Quite the contrary, I was unblocked based on lack of consensus that anything I did violated policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
You want to ban me, but the sheer bulk of evidence showing that Moreschi has been a destructive admin and Folantin as an edit warrior who resorts to nasty incivility, and the fact that you didn't once tell those incivil people at the Workshop to stop, shows that you aren't speaking honestly here Brad. I endured more nastiness in that ArbCom case from those people than anything you could ever claim I put out. I'm not the threat here, and the fact that you don't see that is scary. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I've noticed a few very similar edits from three new users User:AlMarney, User:Morisan, and User:Grenberd at Lists of United States Supreme Court cases. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] I don't think I'm crazy to think this looks like possible sockpuppetry.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ditto for User:NurvCenter, User:Geomart and User:NedMelly.[30][31][32]--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your notes. The pattern here is indeed unusual, but is there any evidence of actual violation of the multiple accounts policy or inappropriate editing? Also, have you raised your concerns directly with the editor(s) involved? This is usually the best first step before requesting an investigation, unless there is some sort of urgency. Please let me know. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your abstain makes that passing at the moment. As there are four votes to close right now, you have a limited time to decide whether to shift your vote. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 06:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Addressed. Thanks for the pointer here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • I would ask that you remove your vote to close the case due to more and more information about inappropriate Arbitrator conduct and other aspects. I have so far put up evidence against four Arbitrators that have acted inappropriately, with three still voting on the case. I have also questioned multiple Arbitrators as to why there still is no vote on the original mentorship proposal nor the secondary one in which I wouldn't be able to edit any page besides mainspace. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have reviewed your submissions and find no evidence of arbitrator misconduct in this case. I would consider allowing you to return under mentorship or editing restrictions after a reasonable period of time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Really? You mean that an Arbitrator I accused with evidence of protecting a sock puppet for five months and also releasing confidential evidence I released to ArbCom in an RfC that was deleted by one of the parties and was one of the central issues in the case did not matter? Especially when that Arbitrator did not recuse when the case dealt with her as a central issue? Or that Wizardman did not recuse when he was in the major content dispute that prompted this whole thing and worked as an advisor for me in starting straw polls, working with the RfCs, going to ANI, and the first RfAr posting? Or that Coren not only lied about performing a CU check because he thought there was more than enough evidence to warrant one but also wished one of the parties to sign up for the ArbCom election? These are serious conflicts of interest. As a lawyer, you would definitely know any kind of relationship like this in a judge or a jury would allow for an immediate mistrial or win an appeal. I've already gotten word on what kind of fighting is happening on the ArbCom email list. You don't need to pretend that there isn't serious issues surrounding this case. The fact that there were only 7 out of 18 Arbitrators around to even decide should have caused concern, especially when 3 of them had blatant conflicts of interest in the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
By the way, why is it not mentioned that Moreschi deleted a page of mine out of process? Or that multiple people have testified that Moreschi and Folantin have run the same chat and had a lot of discussions with various participants, including those like Risker? Who obviously knew of a long standing relationship between the two? Why is it not mentioned that Risker allowed Unitanode to be a restart even though they had a long standing history with both me and Mattisse, yet came back and continued to harass both of us? Is anyone going to do anything about Unitanode and Elen both being restart accounts? Or is that how Wikipedia operates? Behavior is acceptable as long as an Arbitrator can successfully hide it? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Ottava Rima, it's time to stop this. I have no idea about Elen of Roads, but Unitanode is a restart account, yes. He had very valid reasons for abandoning his previous account, stopped editing for a period because of those reasons, and he returned with no sanctions or clouds over his head. That he had disagreements with two editors who have both been brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee in the past year puts him into the same category as many other editors; that is, it's irrelevant to his return. For the record, I would do what I could to facilitate the return of just about any editor who abandoned a prior account under the circumstances that Unitanode abandoned his previous account. It's about civic responsibility. I don't recall any discussions I've ever had with Moreschi or Folantin; if there were any, they were completely unmemorable. I have never invested any time in following other editors around the wiki or seeing what they're editing; if they're doing something they shouldn't, it's their responsibility, and I am not their babysitter.
Now, Ottava Rima, what I am sincerely hoping you will realise is that this incessant collecting of grievances about any editor who tried to redirect you, disagreed with you, or complained about your behaviour is exactly the problem that brought you before the Arbitration Committee. I strongly encourage you to learn to let go, as difficult as it may be. The quality of your work has never been an issue; it has always been good. This is all about your challenges in editing in a way that respects the working environment necessary for this project to succeed. You've given us no reason to think that you're willing to change your behaviour even in the slightest; your posts of the last 24-48 hours suggest that you really don't get how combative your behaviour has been and continues to be. I really do hope that with time away from this project, you'll be able to understand how caustic your interactions have been with people, and that you develop the skills to present your perspective without berating other editors. There are some good people out there who are willing to work with you, and I encourage you to at least hear them out. The one thing I would suggest, for both you and them, is to focus on behaviours that can be mitigated, and leave the personalities behind. Risker (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
There is NEVER a valid reason to allow someone to create a new account to harass other people. The fact that his actions have been solely to harass me and Mattisse is more than enough to prove that you shouldn't be allowed access near such permission. My behavior? You have broken so many rules it isn't even funny. You knew Geogre was a sock puppet yet you worked with him and his sock to game FARs, to bully other users, and you sat back as he edit warred under both names and said nothing. I never did ANYTHING like that. You have some nerve. I have created beautiful content. You have aided sock puppetry and some of the worse abuse. HOW DARE YOU. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
And Risker, you have no right to judge ANYTHING I've ever done. I filed that RfC because YOU abused me with the sock puppets. Moreschi deleted it to protect you. That was central to the case. The fact that you didn't bother to recuse yourself only verifies all of the statements by me about you. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Ottava Rima, none of what you say here is true, even remotely. You see a minor coincidence and ascribe the worst interpretation to it, with absolutely no evidence but your own very distorted perspective. In order for you to return, you will have to be able to stop interpreting every action an editor takes onwiki as a personal grudge against you and creating elaborate conspiracy theories imputing non-existent links between people and actions. I am sorry that you have elected to begin your enforced break in this way, as it does not bode well for a successful return, but I will hold out hope that at some point in the next six months to a year, the penny will drop and you'll realise how corrosive your behaviour has been. Risker (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
You already admitted to approving Unitanode as a restart. It is already evidence that was not challenged that Unitanode was operating at an RfC AGAINST YOU. It was already admitted as evidence that Moreschi deleted said RfC. Are you going to suddenly pretend none of that happened? "none of what you say here is true" Is what you claimed. Are you going to strike that? Or are you going to let people know that you are unwilling to admit the truth because it shows how corrupt you are and how you abused your authority by not recusing? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
And Risker, people in the Mattisse case on both sides were ashamed of you when I forwarded them the Arbitrator email verifying that Unitanode was a restart account approved by you and not told to the ArbCom before hand and yet was settling old vendettas in Mattisse's ArbCom case. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Ottava, the problem with that RFC was that there was no dispute between you and me. As far as I can tell, and this is borne out by the (completely independent) administrator who ultimately shut down that RFC after it was reinstated, there was nothing there to resolve. This dispute has entirely taken place in your mind, I had no dispute with you. Unitanode's account creation was entirely within WP:CLEANSTART, he was not required to notify anyone of his return. That he did so was a courtesy that is not required even under the considerably stricter rules for alternate accounts that are in place today. You continue to be unable to realise that sometimes you are wrong, Ottava Rima; that genuinely saddens me, and I hope you are more flexible in your thinking when you are not onwiki, or you will have some really hard and tragic lessons ahead for you in life. Risker (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
You aided a sock puppet who harassed me and caused me extreme stress and reputation problems. That is a dispute between me and you. The fact that you aided a restart account doing the same thing shows a pattern of behavior. And Cleanstart does not allow for old disputes to be restarted. Check again. "and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit." He pretended to be a new account in the dispute and pretended to have no history. It wasn't until I contacted multiple Arbitrators with evidence about him being a sock that they found out he was a restart. That is a CLEAR violation of clean start. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
It is categorically untrue that there had been no discussion of Unitanode as a cleanstart account until after you and he interacted. Maybe the other arbitrators forgot, but they had been informed long before. And no, nobody is expected to monitor the contributions of cleanstart accounts on an ongoing basis. Your concerns about the returning account were addressed by another arbitrator appropriately. Risker (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have multiple Arbitrator emails that had to ask. Saying "they forgot" is a really poor excuse. Furthermore, the account clearly violated the clean start standards as bolded above and you know it. You were informed of it. It was present at multiple cases. You saw it. It was at the RfC against you. You can't pretend you didn't see it continuing old fights, especially when you were at Mattisse's ArbCom case and saw it continuing an old fight there. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Pity's sake, Ottava. How in heaven's name is anyone supposed to know who you think you've had a dispute with in the past? I had no recollection until you mentioned it that his previous account had come in contact with you, and would have had no reason to even think about that. Given that it seems you classify anyone who disagrees with you on any subject, whether one post or a hundred, to be in some sort of longterm battlefield dispute with you, I'm afraid you might well be considering yourself in dispute with about 400 editors at this point. Which, I am afraid, says more about your continued WP:BATTLE mentality than it does anything else. Risker (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
You already said I was a liar but then I pointed out how you couldn't make such claims as they were fact. Now you are trying to dig yourself out of the hole by going deeper? And Risker, Geogre was desysopped. Did I hallucinate that? I don't think so. All the Arbitrators know your involvement with it. All the Arbitrators know Bishonen's. Battle mentality? You set up a battleground system long ago and you were targetting me. You are a hypocrite. I never approved of sock puppetry. You can't say the same thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey Brad, yes or no - do you think this is ethical conduct for an Arbitrator during a case? Especially after Moreschi personally attacked me about my religion where people who posted evidence -against- me told him he was wrong to do? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ottava, in three hours someone is going to block you for a year. Is this really how you want to go out? Nathan T 23:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, because I want people to see how corrupt and out of process this block is so it will have more than enough grounds to be overturned and the abusers dealt with. I have plenty more ArbCom emails and other evidence. As you can see, I've been slowly leaking more and more. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
What Nathan said. Ottava, you've made a mess of all this, in many senses of the term "mess." You continue to aggravate rather than to help any case you might have. Show a little graciousness and, dare I say it, humility and self-reflection. Stop already, I suggest. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Mess? I think it is obvious that the only "mess" was Risker thinking she didn't have to recuse. Don't think for once that I don't have more communications and other facts on this. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Brad, answer this - 1. Risker approved Unitanode as a restart. 2. Moreschi is Jack's mentor. 3. I put up an RfC on Risker's protecting Geogre while knowing he was abusing socks. 4. Moreschi deletes the RfC. 5. Unitanode and Jack start trying to disrupt the RfC, after it was pointed out Moreschi had no right to delete it, and the Wikiquette put up about their disruptive statements. 6. Risker doesn't recuse on a case with the above being central matters. Where is the propriety? Not only was Risker's approval of a sock puppet (Unitanode, because "Restart" doesn't apply to a user who goes and starts harassing two users they previous had conflicts with), but there is no way to claim she was not directly involved. Why is this a case about how Ottava Rima deals with others when the major RfC involving Moreschi who is party to the Case is ignored without any statement by ArbCom? When it involved restart accounts and proof that Moreschi and Folantin have a history of working with the above people in a chatroom with multiple witnesses, and I know you saw that evidence because you were in Skype when it was admitted. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • I don't recall any interactions with you in my previous account, and I don't think I had more than the briefest interaction with Mattisse. Your wild accusations against anyone who disagrees with you have not served you well at any point, and this is just beyond the pale. No one "approved" me as a "restart." I just did it. I then informed Brad and Risker, and they -- at some point, but I don't know for sure when -- informed the entire arbcom. I could probably find an email showing at what point that was, but I'm not going to do so. What you think of me doesn't matter that much to me. However, I'm not going to let your wild accusations about Risker (at least as far as they relate to me) stand unchallenged. UA 01:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Wild accusations about Risker? Moreschi deleted the RfC against her that showed how she knew of Geogre being a sock puppet for five months before admitting it to ArbCom. No matter what you claim, you can't hide that one. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
And Unitanode, your actions around me and Mattisse showed a strong history. That is how three Arbs agreed that a CU check would be worth while and that is why Risker had to remake it clear you were a restart. Don't act like there was no relationship. Furthermore, everyone here knows that Risker has been on IRC with all of the parties involved. That isn't a secret. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Cut the lies. I didn't have any history with you. I had only the briefest interaction with Mattisse. Your conspiracy theories aside, your behavior often causes people to not have the most favorable impression of you. This does not require having any sort of previous history with you at all. UA 01:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Prove you didn't have a history with me but outing yourself and saving others the effort. And my behavior? Obviously, from looking at your previous account your behavior was inexcusable and your current account suggests the same thing. ArbCom should really take that into consideration. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • I don't have to "prove" anything to you. If you know my previous account, and you out it, you'll probably find yourself banned for good. And if you do know my previous account, then you know I don't have some vendetta against you. Whatever the case, it would be best to stop digging your hole now. UA 01:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
"then you know I don't have some vendetta against you" Quite a few people have said that your previous account explained why you defended Bishonen and Risker so violently, especially with your claims of "hate" all over the place. It isn't a coincidence you targetted Mattisse and I, who had only one overlap. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I never said that I wasn't friends with Risker and Bish before. And I didn't "target" anyone. That's all in your head. And this is my last post to you. It's a waste of my time. I've said what I had to say, and revealed your wild accusations against Risker as just that. Good bye. UA 01:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Really? So you just coincidentally happened upon all arguments relating to them by people who had a long and negative history with them, and then started accusing them of "hate" and other nasty things? Yes, what a coincidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I really do hope that your real life goes well for you during this next year. And I hope that no one treats you the way that you have treated your "enemies" on this project. UA 02:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
The way I have treated "enemies"? I have worked with everyone who wanted to work on pages regardless of their history. However, my interaction with abusive restart account like you was 100% proper. You accused me of hate multiple times because I put up an RfC against Bishonen's and Risker's abuse by aiding Geogre's sock puppet in multiple edit wars and other inappropriate actions. You violated NPA. You violated CIVIL. What did I do? File a WQA. You have broken just about every rule here, and I broke no rules in regard to you. I can hold my head up high from our interaction. You have your own conscience and the fact that everyone knows the truth about your action to deal with. That is my parting gift to you. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
(Outdent)I doubt many would agree that you've acted in a way that was "100% proper" toward me -- or toward Risker and Bishonen, for that matter. But I don't wish you ill in any way, and I do legitimately hope that you have a nice life. UA 02:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Let see. You claimed I hated Bishonen. My response was to say something like "please remove it". You continued. I asked you to stop. You continued. I took it to WQA. That was the extent of my responding to you. Funny how that works. Yeah, so awful of me. I was so abusive. Yet here you are, on your fancy special account approved of by your friend making attacks on your "enemies" and thinking it is all fine because you had ArbCom permission for it. You have violated the cleanstart guideline. A block isn't far off for your fate. You already admitted more than enough to show the violation. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've struck all of the pointless back-and-forth with you, Rima. And I'm sure I've done nothing for which I'll be blocked. UA 02:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply