Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Ottava Rima Bishonen and Risker

Ottava Rima, Bishonen, and Risker

I invite the community to note that Ottava Rima has opened an RFC on myself and Risker. Here it is. For context, you may wish to compare Ottava Rima's recent Request for arbitration against users Folantin, Dbachmann, Antandrus, Itsmejudith, Akhilleus, Gwen Gale, and Jehochman, and the terms in which that was declined, especially in this comment. Bishonen | talk 10:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC). P.S. Oh, and compare also the both recent and similar (except that Risker doesn't figure in it) RFC: Bishonen 3, brought by another user. Bishonen | talk 11:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC).

I don't see how this can get past first base. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, still to be certified. Didn't Risker announce a break from ArbCom before OR set this in motion? [1] Mathsci (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see it's gone now. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, this wasn't anything more than just a rerun of Bishonen 3, with a go at Risker bundled in there. Nuked accordingly: the only new stuff there was the Risker material, which hardly belongs in a Bishonen RFC. Unfortunately this is just Ottava Rima waging wikiwars again...Moreschi (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... sorry to have bothered the noticeboard. Bishonen | talk 13:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC).

• Are RFCs normally deleted prior to the 48 hour window closing? Why was it necessary to delete it immediately? –xeno^talk 13:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It was malformed - it listed two people, gave no evidence of attempt to resolve the dispute, and listed the 'continued behaviour after DR' as Bishonen continuing to be an admin and Risker continuing at Arbcom. Even if it had merit, it would have had to be taken away and redone properly. To my mind (not wishing to speak for Moreschi) it was just clerking. If Ottava wants to come back with an RfC (or two RfC's if he still wants to include Risker) which shows where Bishonen has continued to act against policy or an Arbcom decision, then that avenue is still open. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The RfC is about -one- individual with evidence that involved Risker with Bishonen and thus Risker was named merely as a secondary. Previous ArbCom attempts and RfC attempts are dispute resolution. Deletion of a page is never appropriate and not "just clerking". Per the recent ArbCom ruling, Bishonen's continued adminship is a constant acting against policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't this constitute an ex post facto application of the ruling though? –xeno^talk 13:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If the RFC is without merit, it will go uncertified and be deleted within process. –xeno^talk 13:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What world do you live on? People who have made no effort to "resolve a dispute" will "certify" they have attempted to resolve a dispute because they watched other people attempt to resolve a dispute. Beyond that, there will be no clear statement of what the "dispute" in question is. Hipocrite (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Desysop Moreschi, restore the page

Page was re-created and deleted edits were subsequently restored as well. –xenotalk 18:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Half of the evidence directly involved Moreschi, Moreschi's indef of me, Moreschi defending Geogre's deleting of my page, and other problems. Moreschi's deletion of the page directly violates conflict of interest and knowingly violates conflict of interest. There was no AfD. There was no attempt at any sort of propriety. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Support desysop. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC) OK, who thinks I am involved here? Because if concsensus is that I'm not, I'm going to block Ottava Rima for disruption and consistently failing to take on board many, many criticisms of their abrasive style of interaction with others. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC) JzG, seeing as how you figured in with many of the defenses of Geogre sock puppeting, abusively deleting pages, and that there is no possible way to claim Moreschi legitimately deleted the page, I really think your statement here is highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC) [after archiving but for clarity] - I can't even remember what you're on about here so I will have to go and look it up, but it does rather seem that your technique is to pick a fight with every single adminon the project so we run out of uninvolved ones to block you for picking fights with everybody else as well. Guy (Help!) 18:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Everyone who disagrees with Ottava is automatically "involved." BTW, he's just recreated the RfC, which is utterly predictable. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Complete with the problems listed before, except that now he isn't pointing to RfC Bishonen 3 as "evidence of dispute resolution", just the Arbcom report on Geogre. This is nonsense. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Would support block of OR at this point by any available admin. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Throw in my support for a block! This is just disruptive. Jeni (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Per what violation, exactly? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC) (ec) Support block of Ottava per WP:BATTLEFIELD. His vindictive trolling is a serious waste of good faith users' time.--Folantin (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC) At the very least, OR needs to take a long, relaxing vacation on the Baltic (if not Boardwalk or Park Place) and possibly get into a regimen of stress pills, or at least cut back on the caffeine. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Oppose desysop of Moreschi—I don't particularly like the chap, but this is not the place to rouse up an angry desysop-mob (the best term I could come up with in alternative to "witch-hunt"). Nor do I think that it is appropriate to forum-shop this at RfC and on ANI, particularly without producing concrete evidence in both locations. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 13:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC) And support block of 10+ days for Ottava at this point, for using Wikipedia as a battleground and stirring up nastiness (basically, general trolling). ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 13:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Absolutely no blocks of anyone required here. If Ottava'a RfC is without merit, as appears to be being claimed, then it will not be certified. What's the problem that needs to be solved with a big stick and a lot of unnecessary bullying? Is everyone just trying to shut Ottava up by whatever means possible because he holds an unpopular opinion? That what it looks like. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Comment by uninvolved Headbomb: I don't know the full story here, but to unilaterally delete an RfC on the same day it's been made (especially if the admin who did it had a conflict of interest), and block the guy who made it seems grossly innapropriate and very abusy. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC) It definitely is. And now he cannot add anything to it or respond to comments left. Majorly talk 13:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Moreschi isn't involved with Bishonen or Risker. Moreschi had some involvement in the Geogre case. Ottava Rima thinks that Bishonen and Risker should step down over their involvement in the Geogre case, although this sanction was not supported (not even sure if it was proposed) at the time that Geogre was desysopped. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Oppose - just another in Ottava's long line of battles with...just about everyone. -->David Shankbone 15:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima blocked

I have blocked Ottava Rima with an expiry time of 1 week. Setting up an RFC on a matter which has already been resolved, restoring it after its deletion, and then coming here calling for desysops is clearly vindictive behavior. Normally, I would not block for an offense like this, and the duration of 1 week is a long one, but concerns regarding Ottava's combative and uncooperative approach have been a concern for a long time, and he has been blocked for this previously. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support – good move... ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 13:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Support - Though if we know OR he will have talked his way out of the block within a few hours. Jeni (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Support - although I am of the same view as Jeni as to the stickiness of the block --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Oppose The matter is not resolved. It was deleted in an abusive manner by one of the admins mentioned on it, so the recreation is perfectly OK. Calling for desysops is probably not a good idea, but I can see precisely where he is coming from here. This looks, on the edge, like someone created an RFC, had it deleted by one of the involved admins, then was blocked for a week for creating it. Not good. Block is punitive. Majorly talk 13:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC) It wasn't deleted by one of the involved admins. I don't know where you got that idea. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Please note Ottava's comment further up this page. Majorly talk 13:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Yeah, just because Ottava said it, doesn't make it true. The RfC is because Ottava thinks Bish and Risker should resign. This sanction was not proposed at the time of the Geogre case. Moreschi is not involved with that - it's not as if he argued that Bish should keep the mop. If he did, perhaps Ottava could point to it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Just because Ottava said it doesn't make it false either, as you seem to be implying. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC) OK, then point me to some diffs. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC) 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) Why bother posting here then? The RFC is not invalid, unless you think disagreeing with it makes it so. Majorly talk 13:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Now folks, this isn't fair. Majorly doesn't realise that you are all being sarcastic, not suggesting that you all should recuse. Majorly, in Ottava's opinion, everyone who has ever disagreed with him is part of a cabal of admins that are out to get him. The joke is that you can never say anything against him, or you are in his eyes instantly disqualified from saying anything against him. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Support Latest of a long series of WP:BATTLEFIELD violations. --Folantin (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Support - Relieved to see some action is finally being taken against persistent and tenacious drama-mongers the last few days around here. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Support. Wikipedia is not a battlefield.  Sandstein  13:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Though the RfC should not have been deleted out of process, of course. But that's what WP:DRV is for.  Sandstein  13:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Neutral. There is disruption, borderline incivility, and a general impression of shenanigans from Ottava Rima. Certainly, none of OR's edits to this thread have been conducive to reasonable discussion on the issues raised. But the deletion of the RFC was out of process. None of the Speedy criteria apply; Vandalism would be the closest match, but the page was not overt vandalism, nor was it an overt attack page. If G10 applied to pages such as this, half of the arbcom's pages would be blammed. Is a block justified? Maybe. But the RFC should be decertified via process, left to be certified on its merits (on which I make no comment), or taken to MFD due to shenanigans. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Oppose. Removing an unpopular RfC by an unpopular editor and then blocking that editor for a week is a clear abuse of process. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Do not support block - While I have myself spoken out about Ottava's methods in the past, and agree that he would do well to take the advice offered by NYB linked in the opening of this thread, I don't think a block is the appropriate response here. I notice Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ottava Rima remains redlinked. Was he given any formal warnings prior to this block? –xenotalk 13:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Support repeated problem editor who refuses to accept the previous outcomes. Verbal chat 13:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn. I don't think a block of this magnitude is necessary, and I bring up another problem. Ottava Rima, I am sure has FACs and GANs, and a block does not make things easier. This is especially true for 1 week. Also, the issue in itself is unresolved, and that should be a matter first.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 13:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I think this is the wrong block - not a popular opinion, I'm sure. Ottava creates an RfC that, at least to this editor, looks different to the previous one. I make no judgement on its appropriateness, but would suggest that if deleted out of process, it wouldn't be unnatural for the first reaction to be to recreate it as an application of BOLD. I too lament that Ottava's style in disagreements appears all to often to be to demand maximum punishment, which incidentally obscures his legitimate claims of abuse. But to block for this makes me uneasy - it just has the appearance of a block borne out of a series of recent incidents where Ottava has irritated/offended some editors rather than a preventative measure to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Oppose, O.R. has been in my experience a good contributer and this block is bullshit. Bocks from banning rfc at all is completely fucking stupid, it gives admin a excuse to circle jerk over the page in a I won you lose type of thing. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I am inclined to support a block or restriction for his abuse of dispute resolution and battleground issues which has been going on for some time (not necessarily [i.e. but no view on] this block). DRV was the way to go, and though there was no issue with raising it at ANI, there was with the way in which he did so here. That said, I think the deletion was riddled with too many problems, and Moreschi may want to consider making a pledge not to use tools for incidents that directly relate to Ottava Rima in the future - this is merely to avoid future controversy regarding even a mere appearance of impropriety. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Clarified what I meant by "not necessarily" here due to apparent, but understandable misinterpretation by user who was blocked; also readjusted words to make this a little bit clearer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Oppose. I think Ottava's behavior could most certainly be better, but I do not think a block is appropriate at this point. Instead, I recommend someone create an RfC on Ottava's behavior (not specifically concentrated on this incident) and try to follow actual dispute resolution procedures. We should not block someone for creating an RfC (or even recreating one). Karanacs (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Re: "We should not block someone for creating an RfC", I agree, but that is a bit like saying "We should not block someone for making an edit". Making an RFC where you demand that the only possible resolution is that the subject lose the admin tools and/or gets kicked off ArbCom is a problem (the evidence of failing to resolve the dispute was that Bishonen "was an admin"). Demanding desysoping of the admin who deleted the RFC compounds to this. Furthermore, the problem is not just this one isolated incident, but a sustained pattern of problematic conflict. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Rehashing what is said on the RfC/U page itself, "RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process." Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Yep, the Wikipedia equivalent of Vexatious litigation. Calling for editors who disagree with him to be blocked and admins to be desysopped is a kneejerk reaction with Ottava Rima. Bishonen had just given evidence against OR in an RFAR so he responded with an RFC against her. --Folantin (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Support OR has spent too much time recently litigating and harassing other contributors just as capable as he is. This RfC seems to have been a continuation of his failed RfAr. The desired outcome speaks for itself. He does not appear to have understood the message from multiple users and ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Support block. OR's pattern of continuing, cyclic drama escalation about an ever self-renewing list of perceived grievances and against an ever-growing sequence of perceived enemies has reached a certain automatic quality here. He was going after a number of other users over an unrelated issue, failed at Arbcom, was told in no unclear terms to knock it off, saw that Bishonen had been making remarks critical of him in that process, and now, clearly in retribution, decides to go after Bishonen, about yet another totally unrelated (and stale) issue. No doubt he will take the present incident as a reason to go after Moreschi with yet more of the same tactics, and after that against yet somebody else who happens to cross their path in the process. Before this gets perpetuated in all eternity, the community needs to stop him, here and now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Support; agree with FPAS and others. Enough of this already. Somehow we have to get through to Ottava that his behavior is not acceptable. Antandrus (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Support Clearly exhibiting very bad behaviour and treating the wiki like a battlefield. This behaviour is very unacceptable. -DJSasso (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Oppose. Either it is the case that RFC cannot be prematurely closed and one has to go through some rigorous procedure or we don't have such rules. In the latter case, if an RFC has been closed without much discussion, it cannot be a violation of any rules to start the same RFC again. If that's seen to be a problem, then one has to think about fixing the rules for RFC closings (e.g. compare the rules we have for closing AFDs, including the DR appeals process). If such rules are implemented, then one could complain about some editor violating the rules. Count Iblis (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Oppose OR was within his rights. Blocks are to prevent harm to the encyclopedia. At worst, OR exasperated a few people, but if that was a blocking offense, we'd all be blocked.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Comment If my impression is correct in that he was blocked for BATTLEGROUND-related issues, the fact that his unblock request mentions how he's going to take everyone involved to ArbCom more or less seals it. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Oh, just to clarify, I'm not completely convinced on the block's merits, but regardless I do agree with those who suggest opening an RFC rather than constant blowups on the dramaboards noticeboards. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Oppose This block is exactly as wrong-headed as Ottava Rima's RFC. The way to fix something broken is not to break something else. I don't see how this action helps the encyclopedia at all. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Oppose Recreating the RFC might or might not have been a stupid move but it was done. The block was unnecessary because it does not rectify the situation but only create more drama. OR, despite usually not sharing his POV, was correct that the previous RFC was deleted out of process and as such an abuse of admin tools by the admin who did it but OR chose the wrong way to handle it (as Sandstein points out above, DRV would have been the correct way). Still, creating an RFC is not a blockable offense and no other edits afterwards really amounted to anything worth blocking for. As Xeno points out above, the better way to handle problems with OR's behavior would be an RFC on him. Not a block. Regards SoWhy 15:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Support - Ottava needs to stop undertaking battles with every editor. It's getting tiresome. -->David Shankbone 15:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Support good idea William M. Connolley (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC) On reflection, I didn't really reflect over this, and don't have a clear opinion on this situation. Switching to "haven't thought enough to have an opinion, wish I hadn't commented" William M. Connolley (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Oppose block on this occassion. He was within his rights to start the RfC. It's not clear he was simply being vindictive, as the matter hadn't been fully resolved. Epbr123 (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Creating an RFC that was substantially a recreation of an RFC the community made clear it wasn't interested in is disruptive, especially when the subject of the RFC had made some rather pointed remarks about you at RFAR. Recreating that RFC when it was deleted for being malformed and duplicate is disruptive. Treating Wikipedia as a battleground is disruptive. Ottava has done all this. Disruption is blockable. As a side note: a while back I, as an unrelated administrator, blocked Ottava indefinitely for disruption. That block I later undid under strict promises of future good conduct that he swore he would abide by. Those promises have been broken and repeatedly ignored. I have never been in a content dispute with Ottava that I can remember, and I have no idea what "supporting Geogre's deletion of my page" refers to (must have been a while ago). His hilarious threats to have me demopped are a joke. And have people bothered to check Ottava's block log before commenting here? RFC or no RFC, he has had more than enough chances to learn that his repeated battleground-style conduct is unacceptable. He has not got the message. The block was perfectly valid. Moreschi (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Oppose. Without looking at the underlying issue, this clearly looks like a bunch of admins ganging up on Ottawa for daring to question one of their buddies. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC) You haven't looked about the underlying issue, so how does your comment have any validity? Ottava's habit of keeping feuds going when the history goes back years means that looking at the history is pretty essential. Moreschi (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC) And please assume some good faith. Some of us don't know any of the people involved. -DJSasso (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC) When someone brings a complaint, then look at the evidence. If you think the complaint is baseless then just say so. Don't delete the complaint and block the person who complained. That is even more important if you are a friend of the person complained of. When I look back at this issue, all I see is people refusing to address the issue. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Huh? Have you bothered to look at this at all? I am a "friend" of Bishonen how? Just because Ottava says so? Right. And I didn't block him. Someone who I've never heard of did. His "complaint" was brought up by FT2 at the last Bishonen RFC and the community (not me, I was on wikibreak) didn't want to know. He just created that RFC because Bishonen commented adversely on his conduct at the recent RFAR Ottava brought. That's trolling. Please bother to review the history before lazily making casual assumptions on the noticeboards. Moreschi (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC) If not a friend, then at least part of the same faction. No, not because Ottawa says so. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC) That is a lie. Bishonen and I have never been involved together in anything that could remotely be considered a faction, and I challenge you to provide evidence. Very often we have been on oppposite sides of disputes: often we have been together. In no way, however, does this equate to factionalism, and I resent your accusation. Moreschi (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC) To take an example, let's say I go down to the local police station to file a complaint about one of the policemen breaking the law. Instead of addressing the complaint, the policeman's department decide to hold a cupcake party in his honor. I file a second complaint, and one ofhis coworkers throw it in the trashcan saying they already addressed it before. I file a third complaint and gets thrown in jail fro a week for refiling a complaint that was thrown away. At this point it doesn't matter whether the original complaint was valid or not, the response is just not acceptable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC) You seem to be under the impression the admin corps and the people who commented on the original RFC are some homogenous mass. It's what Ottava would like you to believe but it's simply bullshit. The Wikipedia community and the admin corps are nothing like the police who, it is true, tend to watch each other's backs. As for the rest, see vexatious litigation. Moreschi (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Oppose abusive block Clearly there is a debate about the validity of the RFC so it should have been handled according to protocol, not the whims of a disputant who happened to have tools. Please stop the abusing admin priviledges and respect our dispute resolution processes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Whims of a disputant? I love how everyone just believes everything Ottava automatically says. Just because he's ranting at me doesn't mean I'm listening, or that there's any actual dispute. There isn't. Moreschi (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Are you playing "I didn't hear that"? Numerous editors have noted that, whether they agree or disagree with the RfC, closing it out of process and blocking the editor who put it up is abusive. Please stop abusing your tools. We work by a process of consensus not unilateral action. If you aren't willing to abide by our procedures and dispute resolution process then you have no business being an admin. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Are you deliberately not reading what happened?I DIDN'T BLOCK HIM AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DECISION TO DO SO. Stop implying I did. Moreschi (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Oppose Unwarranted, and of excessive magnitude. I agree with Wehwalt, Malleus Fatuorum and Majorly. ƒ(Δ)² 17:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Oppose - I think OR is up to some shenanigans and I understand why the block occurred, and don't see the block as abusive, but I also don't think it was necessary. -- Atama頭 18:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Support (obviously). The continual escalation of every trivial dispute is a massive waste of everybody's time. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Oppose blocking. When making controversial blocks we have to consider whether or not the block will actually prevent damage to the project or, in fact, create equally as much damage itself. In this case I think the answer is clear. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Support - should be longer. Crafty (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC) My vote is Strongly oppose. This block only serves to entrench and embitter the dispute with Bishonen. Ye threw petrol on fire, O well done. Ceoil (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Oppose - blocking is a tool to prevent damage to the project; not to resolve disputes. To block this valued contributor is plain stupid. This is not the answer to this problem. Graham Colm Talk 20:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Oppose. At the very least, it was ridiculously premature, before the discussions on the suitability of the RfC, the suitability of its previous deletion, and discussions on all editors' behaviours had run their course and a consensus established. Had Ottava's RfC been judged inadequate, it would not have been certified; had his call for Moreschi's desysopping been judged as without merit, it would have been dismissed. Surely anyone could have seen that the block was only ever going to cause ... well ... this. What the situation needed was calming voices before it got this far; perhaps that's too much to ask in the perennial race to beat the edit conflict and have one's voice heard, but better to have dealt with the underlying issues before—and separately to—the perceived problems with the editor raising them. The way this has panned out, nothing has been resolved. Steve T • C 21:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Support. Considering the long-term problematic behavior, a week seems lenient. Everyking (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Support as a wake up call to a possible future community exhaustion with the battleground mentality. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: Ottava Rima was unblocked at 21:09, 9 October 2009 by GrahamColm since there was no consensus for the block. There's no reason to keep !voting here unless you're seeking a re-block, in which case an RFC/U (as already suggested) would be the way to go. I'm collapsing this section to avoid any unnecessary drama. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggested unblock + editing restriction

(edit conflict) Don't know if this is a good idea or not, really... just thought I'd put it out there. I supported the block. However, I would agree to support an unblock if Ottova would agree to never again call for a desysop unless at least three other users have already done so at the same venue within the previous 12 hours, and to never again allege a conspiracy/cabal of users out to get him/her, and to never again cast aspersions on users' neutrality regarding him/her soley on the basis that they disagree with him/her, on "pain" of extended blocks as an editing-restriction. I think that this would ease much of the trouble and enable productive editing to go on. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 14:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Either it is the case that RFC cannot be prematurely closed and one has to go through some rigorous procedure or we don't have such rules. In the latter case, if an RFC has been closed without much discussion, it cannot be a violation of any rules to start the same RFC again. If that's seen to be a problem, then one has to think about fixing the rules for RFC closings (e.g. compare the rules we have for closing AFDs, including the DR appeals process). If such rules are implemented, then one could complain about some editor violating the rules. Count Iblis (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  What are you opposing? Does this belong one section up? –xeno^talk 14:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry? Don't understand that at all... ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 14:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, the comment belongs to the section above, I've moved it there. Count Iblis (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• An appropriate editing restriction would be that he must stick to content editing, and only commenting on content. All of the problems with OR stem from his interactions with other users. Jeni ^(talk) 14:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That would also be perfectly reasonable, yep. I just don't see it ever happening :( ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 14:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Problem is, that to edit a collaborative project entails...collaboration. Ottava's arguments stem from content discussions. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I think what Jeni meant was content in the mainspace, rather than content on all spaces, such as the Wikipedia space we're commenting in now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, basically he should just get on with editing articles and getting GA's, DYK's and FA's, which he is good at. Leave all the bureaucracy behind the scenes to everyone else. Jeni ^(talk) 14:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
        • How patronising. How about you concentrate on getting a few FA/GA/DYKs and leave the bureaucracy to someone better suited to it? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I understood, NCM. The thing is, when I look at Ottava's disuptes, they start in the mainspace. If Ottava thinks a user is misbehaving in some way, or needs some form of DR, crossing into the non-mainspace is the logical thing. I'm not saying that there aren't problems here, but all these disputes seem to have some origin in the mainspace, so a restriction of this kind won't be helpful at all. If there are behavioural issues that we need to address (and there are), Ottava has yet to be presented at RfC/U and I suggest that as the next venue rather than the panic-driven ferosity that is ANI Fritzpoll (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Ah ok, I can see what you're saying; thank you for clarifying. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
          • No prob.  :) Fritzpoll (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He turned me into a newt! Tan | 39 14:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A newt??? :) →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He got better... –xeno^talk 14:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha! Brilliant. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A reason to unblock

The final round of the WikiCup ends this month. Ottava Rima is one of five remaining finalists, so in the spirit of good sportsmanship please weigh his productivity when considering the block review. The following is a summary of his content work during the current round:

• 42 DYK articles
• 14 GA articles
• 1 featured picture
• 6 FA articles
• 1 good topic

That's what he's done in the last two and a half months. The complete list is available at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Submissions/Ottava_Rima. Without comment regarding his interpersonal interactions, there is no question in my mind that the content side of the project will benefit substantially if he is able to continue editing.

As a fellow finalist who has also been working all year on the Cup, it would be a shame to finish ahead of him because he missed a week at the end over something like this. Durova³²² 14:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Philosophically, there has to come a point where someone's dreadful behaviour outweighs their glowing achievements. Where would you put that point? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Elen. Ottava Rima tends to boast about his content work as a sort of "Get Out of Jail Free" card to avoid any sanctions. Recently, he has wasted the time of plenty of good faith, productive editors with his trolling which might have been spent improving Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why this philosophical point must occur three weeks before the end of a ten month content competition? As much as anybody, I agree one doesn't get an indefinite license, but when someone is this productive they usually merit a few extra chances. Durova³²² 14:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Without taking sides here, this issue comes up often enough that Ottava shouldn't be made the example. This issue of "should we enforce policy in the face of dozens of FA articles" should be hashed out separately. Until we figure out if, and how, we will do that, blocks cannot be handed out on an individual basis. Tan | 39 14:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying we shouldn't block Ottava...or something else? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that the Wikipedia community needs to figure out how we're going to handle situations like this, and then be consistent. Tan | 39 15:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Good editing does not excuse bad behavior. This sort of mindset is what allowed the likes of Betacommand, among others, to run rampant for so long. Tarc (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• This is clearly not a reason to unblock. Ottava is expected to abide by Wikipedia's policies, just like every other user (including, no doubt, the other editors up for the WikiCup). ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 14:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  That said, I would just add that I'm very impressed by Durova's sporting attitude, which does her (?) much credit. But as has been pointed out, there has to be a line somewhere, otherwise it's much like not arresting a famous footballer for drunk-driving because they have an important match coming up. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 15:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That happens often, actually... Tan | 39 15:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't it surprise me that that happened in the US...? I trust that my point is clear, however. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 15:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that was an appropriate time to play the tiresome "UK vs US" card. I hope you feel better now. Tan | 39 15:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to make the war a bit more cheerful... ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 15:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• indeed. If a "WikiCup" finalist cared about winning this game, perhaps he should take greater care not to edit disruptively. As for unblocking, traditionallly it has helped for the blocked editor to show appreciation of the block reasons and to promise to change their behaviour. I strongly advise against unblocking "for free", without any sign of understanding on the part of the blocked editor. If the blocked editor shows such appreciation, they can always be unblocked under parole, with the understanding that re-blocking will be swift as soon as it turns out that the parole is violated. --dab (𒁳) 15:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Good content contributions, adminship (or non-adminship), or any other personal merits ought not to influence our sanctions practices in any way. Either a block is warranted to prevent continued disruption, or it is not. Prior content contributions have nothing to do with this. See WP:NVC and, most apropos, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Vested Contributors.  Sandstein  15:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure at all about his content contributions. In my opinion they are poor, at least the three that I paid attention to a) the first nomination of the Lucy Poems, b) Samuel Johnson's early life, and c) Ode on Indolence. Not only were all three poorly written (I mean specifically the parts contributed by Ottava Rima), but I feel that the only reason why the second was FA'ed and the third has survived as long as it has on FAC, is that Ottava Rima opened an FAC talk page thread about my supposed personal vendetta against him. The Lucy Poems renom was mostly the work of Ceoil, Kafka Liz, and Awadewit; they being very generous people would never agree with me. All articles (again, specifically the parts written by Ottava Rima) suffered from inaccurate paraphrasing. My own guess is that at some appropriately distant future point of time someone will have to rewrite many of his articles in an accurate scholarly fashion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Folwer, um, sorry to contradict you twice in two weeks (bad luck I suppose (for both of us);)), but we all have different skills here, and very few are complete editors (i note you are though!). Some are pure content - they have a variety of sources, and broad understanding and they add...add...add (Ottava is one of there). Others are skilled copy editors, and we know we have two few of these guys. Then you have you infoboxers and taggers, and your drama board people. The first are the most imp group, and in the examplle you cited -Lucy- I would say Ottava contributed 60-70% of the content. I started that page in user space, and struggled with it for weeks before Ottava decended and put the majority of it in a few days. Personally I don't agree with the RFC he began, and I cringe as much as anyone at his approach, but just to say he has strong merit as an editor in my book. So he needs a copyeditor to refine his article. Fine. Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I do understand that he is quickly able to locate content in books and journals, presumably because he has access to a library or to academic databases. However, I am questioning his paraphrasing abilities, and, ultimately, therefore, the ability to truly understand the content that he so effectively locates. That is different from the presence or absence of prose-writing skills. But I won't press my point any further, since I just remembered that you had given me some wise counsel, which I had temporarily forgotten when I added a comment here. Thanks for the reminder! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think good edits should normally be a mitigating factor when a user is blocked, but when the conduct is particularly bad and persists over a long period of time, that ceases to apply. At some point, you have to do something. Everyking (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Section break: "A reason to unblock"

What appears to have been an accidental edit blanked my post the same minute it posted. Reinstating:

This morning is quite a stange one (it's 8:14am over here). Usually I'd be on the hardliner side of the fence regarding content v. conduct, but since this is so time-limited--the Cup ends in three weeks--it seemed like a reasonable request. Ottava Rima currently has an FA drive and 10 DYK drives underway. If he isn't unblocked I'll proxy that content myself (no one will object to that, surely?) But bear in mind, please, that this represents time away from my own content work. My current restoration projects include a Peruvian landscape, a seventeenth century nautical chart, and a Korean gama. Durova³²² 15:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No. it doesn't. Good editing doesn't excuse bad behaviour. There isn't any kind of trade-in system editors can use. If you proxy content for a blocked user you're participating in block evasion and since you've threatened to do so you should be blocked until you rescind that comment. We don't reward bad behaviour by breaking the rules for someone.--Crossmr (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Crossmr, don't be so stupid, of course Durova shouldn't be blocked for making that suggestion.

Durova, it is technically block-evasion, but given the WikiCup circumstances (and your very fair-minded approach to this) I would have no problem with you proxying soley for that purpose. Obviously it's not up to me, though ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 16:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, TreasuryTag. There's no guarantee that Ottava would take the offer. To Crossmr, occasionally in the past I have sought prior approval to proxy uncontroversial content for blocked or banned users. It's never been a problem when it's handled that way. Durova³²² 16:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I'm not being stupid. And you even admit that it is block evasion, which is a violation of policy. Which is disruptive. Blocks are used to prevent further disruption and currently Durova is on record stating that she intends to aid a blocked user in evading their block. They didn't suggest that the community should consider finding a way to accept ottava's contributions. She instead stated flat out that she intended to aid a blocked user in evading their block. You didn't look like you were seeking prior approval here, you stated you intended to do it unless someone objected. I object to proxying any blocked users contributions.--Crossmr (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, don't be so silly, Durova is making a good faith, open and honest attempt to improve WP, no need to bite heads off here! Jeni ^(talk) 16:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec x2) No one has ever objected to that type of proposal when I've made it in advance of editing before, but if you really feel so strongly I'll withdraw it. It's sad, though, to be unable to help someone who's been so sporting about the Cup--we've done several content drives together over the last several months. Feels a bit like the social networking aspect has gotten ahead of project mission. Would it be so hard to come down on him in November instead of precisely now? Anyway, I'll be off in Photoshop working on content. Durova³²² 16:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I'm not biting anyone's head off. If you notice, I'm not the one who had to result to personal attacks to make my point. I have objected in the past to any special treatment given to users who violate the rules because of their "good" contributions. If you're unsure in the future, I absolutely will object in any future cases as well. Regardless of whether or not this editor has made good contributions to the encyclopedia they've violated the rules, several times and to several extents from their block log and the amount of times I've seen their name on AN/I. If the cup is that important to them and their behaviour has potentially cost them a chance to "win" it. Maybe that will be the catalyst to change their behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is/was stupid to suggest that Durova be blocked until she withdrew her comment. Why would anyone want to do that?

I "admitted" that it was technically block-evasion (and to understand why I italicised the word, read Wikipedia:Ignore all rules).

Durova didn't state she was going to, she clearly asked for input as to whether she could/should. I understood it, and she says that that's what she intended.

I agree that blocks shouldn't just be "evaded" otherwise that defies the point; however, I think that (if only for Durova's sake, since she has said that she would feel very uncomfortable beating Ottava to the Cup soly because of this block) this is one of those cases where we can follow the spirit of the law. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 16:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

technically block evasion is still block evasion. No, she stated she would unless anyone objected, note the "if...will" and the question that assumes no one would object. The spirit of the law is that users who abuse the community shouldn't be rewarded for their bad behaviour. You also stated above that Ottava is expected to abide by Wikipedia's policies, just like every other user (including, no doubt, the other editors up for the WikiCup) or did you forget your own statement? Block evasion is one of those policies.--Crossmr (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR is also a policy, in case you forgot. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Crossmr, you have made your point crystal clear and I have withdrawn the offer. Now please make a corresponding effort to compensate the project for the lost content this hard line approach is causing. You have made precisely 7 mainspace edits so far this month. Your userpage notes you are part of WikiProject Korea; I have two late nineteenth century illustrations of gamas; would you like to help start an article? Overnight I was contacting another Korean editor about a possible DYK drive--there were somewhere between 6 and 12 different kinds of gamas. Durova³²² 17:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in Korea, and I edit Korean articles, I am not a Korean editor though. My amount of main space edits in the last few days are immaterial to this discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec, somewhat moot now) Crossmr, this is one of those cases where ignore all rules is relevant. Durova's offer to proxy Ottava Rima's edits will only serve to improve Wikipedia. If someone blocks her for making these edits on behalf of OR, I will reverts the blocks as soon as I learn about them. And I say this as an uninvolved editor who has no dog in this fight. -- llywrch (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Technically block evasion is still block evasion." I knew you'd say something like that, that's why I linked you to WP:IAR. You clearly ignored it. Why? And your mainspace edit-count is relevant; it shows that you're doing little to help the encyclopedia other than griping around here. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 17:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I took an article to GA 3 weeks ago, or did you fail to notice that? Sorry, but you're not going to try and make my main space vacation in the last week some kind of excuse to allow another editor to aid someone in block evasion. IAR is a policy, its not a shield. I'm quite familiar with it. If you check the archives at various times I've commented extensively on it. It is best applied when you're not applying it. If you want to try and invoke it as a shield, I can do the same. Oops.. guess we got nowhere. If this was a first time block against a user with an otherwise spotless record you might, and I stress the might, have a case for IAR.--Crossmr (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"It is best applied when you're not applying it," – I've never heard such drivel in my life. Durova wants to proxy (when did 'proxy' become a verb anyway?!) some excellent content material from Ottava, in a very sporting gesture and for a specific purpose. If there is a consensus to allow this (which I think there is, now, actually) then it is clearly a case for IAR, since those who agree it should be allowed are ignoring the block-evasion principles for a higher principle. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 17:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Because you can't just invoke IAR and walk away. You need to explain why its a good idea to bend the rule or ignore it. You should be able to do so without saying IAR. If you need to invoke IAR as some kind of heavy hitter in your argument, you're doing it wrong.--Crossmr (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We are all explaining. It's a good idea to bend the rule because this will enable a fairer and more honest fight for the WikiCup (as agreed by Durova), and some good content to be added. And there is no harm or risk whatsoever. OK? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 17:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He's certainly not being blocked for his content drive activities, so actually it is a case for IAR. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You're seriously going to block someone for helping in a content drive? This is nuts. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He seems to be still gunning to have me blocked even after the offer has been withdrawn, with no actual proxy edits made. That's okay; the gama article drive can probably reach DYK without his assistance. Durova³²² 17:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Gunning to have you blocked? No. not at all. You withdrew it, why would I still call to have you blocked? Did I say anywhere in my last statement that Durova should be blocked?--Crossmr (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay then I don't understand why you're still posting, or for that matter why any of this means so much to you. At any rate, the intention of this subthread was to make the discussion less contentious. I apologize for having inadvertently led things in the other direction. Durova³²² 17:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well. Let's call it a day.--Crossmr (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Note from Sjakkalle

I will be logging off in a few minutes time. If a consensus develops that the block was mistaken, or if terms for an unblock can be worked out, I will have no objection to that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Slicing the knot

Just topic ban Ottava Rima from Bishounen. If he keeps this crap up, he can be sent on a longer vacation than his current one. Jtrainor (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That's... not a bad idea, actually. It would help if Bishounen also agreed to give OR a wide berth, but it's not critical - Bishonen's conduct has not been at issue in this incident. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the RFC of course. Majorly talk 15:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. I'm already "giving him a wide berth". I have very largely ignored (barring opening this ANI thread, plus informing him of it on his page, as is proper) the free-hand inventions Ottava Rima has persistently been posting about me, such as here: [2][3][4][5] Do please click. And if you have any doubts that his Bishonen campaign is made up of inventions — is cut out of whole cloth — it might be an idea to ask him to supply one or two diffs for any of it. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC).

Probation

Not having been involved with any of this, I'm summarising from the above that (a) it's a shame to lose ongoing valuable content contributions; (b) Ottava Rima has created a disruptive shitstorm and pissed people off, and not for the first time; (c) the deletion of the RFC and block seems somewhat out-of-process and possibly over-reaction. Permitting the RFC to die a natural death might have been a more natural and less dramatic resolution. OR might have followed that up with other actions that might have been construed as disruptive, but now we'll never know.

Moving forward, I suggest that there is enough opposition to the block to try and find a compromise. Here's my suggestion: OR is unblocked, with a view to returning to content editing, and dropping all the outstanding DR issues concerning other editors (if they're that egregious, others will deal with them, right?). The 1 week block is suspended and is reinstated immediately if he breaches this, or otherwise proceeds with vexatious DR before the WikiCup is over. When the Cup is over, the situation should be reviewed to see if further action is required. The probationary unblock should be understood as in no way prejudicing any future sanction, if the community deems it necessary. Also, a better venue for deciding that might be RFC/U, rather than ANI. Rd232 ^talk 17:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that there does not appear to be consensus for the block, so we should default to unblock. Your latter suggestion, however, does seem to beg the question somewhat (as to whether Ottava is engaged in "vexatious dispute resolution" - should be taken up at RFC/U as I suggested above rather than the shitstorm that is ANI).

I would hazard a guess that Ottava will be disinclined to agree not to participate in DR either, though I won't presume to speak for them. However, this is the path of least resistance and may be the most constructive solution. –xeno^talk 17:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to declare that Ottava had previously engaged in "vexatious dispute resolution" (though some seem to think so), only that he should avoid it for the duration of the probation. Relatedly, the injunction to drop the current DR issues should only apply to the probation as well (though he'd be highly advised to not restart things afterwards). Rd232 ^talk 17:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

kk. –xeno^talk 17:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava has commented on the suggestion here: [6]. –xeno^talk 17:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Every five weeks or so [7] OR draws another block for his behavior. What makes anyone think this trend will change? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please actually read the dates. His last block that wasn't overturned was in July last year, nearly 15 months ago. Majorly talk 17:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed your first comment for a reason, Bugs. Spreading yourself too thin again. –xeno^talk 18:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You keep unblocking in the hope that he'll change his behavior. Don't be questioning my reasoning, sir. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the thrust of RD232's suggestion while noting the issues Xeno has identified.

How about an unblock on the condition that Ottava observes a cooling off period of a week or so? If Ottava chooses to pursue the RfC after that, then I think normal protocols should be followed and respected. I don't think he should be prevented (or blocked) from starting an RFC. The focus of effort should be on resolving the dispute (and RfCs are a legitimate venue) so we can all get back to article work. If Ottava wants to pursue matters, as long as he abides policies, I don't think it's any admin's business to shut him down. No one is forced to take part in an RFC after all, or an ANI thread, if they don't want to. Sometimes it's best to just let things run their course instead of trying to stomp down dissent. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Break time

Wow. I am almost left speechless ... almost. There certainly has been a lot sound and fury lately at the 'pedia. Between some of the recent RFAR cases, requests, and motions - to the singling out of individual editors to hold up for ridicule. Everyone seems to be operating on the raw edge lately, and while I'm not sure why - I do know it needs to stop. We're not suffering an onslaught from the outside - we're imploding from within. I propose that we shut down the entire project for 2-weeks, and everyone take a much needed and much deserved vacation. Won't work eh? Well - how about this; everyone just back off for a couple weeks, work on some articles or projects - then try to remember why we're here. (hint: we're supposed to all be here for the same reason). — Ched :  ?  19:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Refactored a bit of the over the top stuff above. As far as the block or unblock ... meh. I just don't see any merit to the RFC/U, I know that OR is a well established editor, but I think a lot of folks have been editing in an emotionally charged state lately. I would strongly suggest that Ottava take a little time off and enjoy the things that real life has to offer. Personally I'd rather see him do this of his own volition, and prefer he be given the opportunity to do so. WP can be a wonderful thing, but perhaps we're into "can't see the forest for the trees" territory now. — Ched :  ?  19:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A proposal to stop the project for two weeks? Sounds disruptive. Do we need to block you Ched? :) (I'm not going to get in trouble for this joke am I...) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL .. no, no offense taken. And I wasn't suggesting deleting the project - just shutting down and everyone take a break. I'll be leaving myself next week for an extended period to visit our great state of Flordia. When I get back, I have a FLC to put in, and then I'll try to concentrate on improving my writing skills, creating some DYK stuff, moving a few things up to GA, working with the new Admin Project and having a look at the new community de-sysop system ... it's worth a shot anyway. ;) — Ched :  ?  23:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinions are evenly divided so we default to unblock

Based on a simple bean counting, the opinions about the block are split almost right down the middle. We default to unblock as a result. No restrictions, no probation, but also without prejudice to an RFC/U on Ottava's behaviour if someone feels that it is necessary. –xeno^talk 18:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. You aren't a neutral judge of this. --Folantin (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this is my opinion on the situation - I wasn't planning on issuing the unblock myself. –xeno^talk 18:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also disagree. Unblocking will almost certainly cause more disruption, so there needs to be a clear consensus that this will not be a bad thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just as with AFD if there is no consensus we default to keep. I see no consensus here to maintain the block. –xeno^talk 18:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2)I'm not convinced there is a consensus to unblock, many of the people who have expressed an opinion opposing the block appear to not be looking at the bigger picture, a very big mistake to make in this situation. Jeni ^(talk) 18:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Appearances can be deceiving... When I looked at the big picture I saw the chilling effect that blocking an editor for initiating a dispute resolution would have. –xeno^talk 18:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - though that hadn't even occurred to me in that "bigger picture" form. Rd232 ^talk 18:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm willing to issue the unblock tomorrow if by then OR agrees to the terms and if by then there is not substantial opposition to the specific idea of probation on those terms. Rd232 ^talk 18:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you might want to ping him on the talk page under this edit and sort that out. –xeno^talk 18:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• They sure don't look "evenly divided" to me, certainly not from the endorsements above. I'd not support an unblock without a drama-to-content parole and a restriction on interacting with those who are repeated targets of OR's vexatious complaints. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Guy. Unless we see some sign that OR is going to improve his behaviour and stop the vendettas which keep ending up here on ANI (and RFAR and RFC...), then I don't see how we can unblock. The cycle will simply repeat itself again. --Folantin (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not the first comment which sounds like we're talking about an indef block - we're not, it's 1 week. Anyway, I've posted on OR's talk page, let's see what he says. If he doesn't accept the probation terms, this is all moot. I've not said anything specifically about not interacting with "those who are repeated targets" because it's really up to OR to show enough common sense in that department (either avoid interacting or find a way to do so productively); if he doesn't, we'll soon be back here. Rd232 ^talk 19:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• 1111111111111111 (supports, including Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC) which was iffy)

  1111111111111111 (oppposes)

  Looks even to me. –xeno^talk 18:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a vote? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a demonstration that opinions are evenly divided. –xeno^talk 19:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Why solicit opinions if it's your clear intention to pick and choose which opinions you like? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

They don't look even anymore since I added mine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't modify my comment. It is not meant to be a running tally, and as Akhilleus pointed out, this is not a vote. –xeno^talk 20:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your comment. Sorry, was going to remove it anyway (as I have my support vote upstairs). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup

I am just here to talk about this cool WikiCup idea. Now, would it be possible to include exemplary behavior as one of the criteria to winning this or any other cup? Let's focus a bit beyond the FA, DYK, FP. Good behavior coupled with outstanding editorial skills gives us a model editor —a deserved win. Discipline, good spirit and fair play are both essential to sports people. Same here. WikiCup can be —or already is— a tool which can produce excellent results and achieve good goals. The quality of our articles gets better and our working environment gets healthier. The community needs some breath; we need to stop polluting our environment and look for alternative energies to protect our project.

I won't comment on the validity of the block but unblocking Ottava Rima and directing him to work on the FAs and DYKs would probably be beneficial. An ANI/RfC/ArbCom restriction of three weeks could help. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree here. It works more as a probation/topic thing that helps a lot more than more issues :). Go content!Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 20:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It comes across as politicking when someone who did not participate in this year's Cup, has not registered for next year's Cup, and who has made only 50 mainspace edits since August 20[8] chooses ANI as the sole venue for attempting to dictate what that competition's standards ought to be. Many open discussions were held about Cup standards and the individual who started this subthread participated in none of them. Without defending or condemning Ottava Rima's conduct, opportunistic grandstanding is repugnant. Please lead by example, because I'm seriously considering resigning from the Cup in protest. Durova³²² 20:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, please don't do that!

I tend to agree, from a philosophical point of view, "Who's FayssalF to talk?" now that Durova puts it as she did. However, in practical terms, everyone should get to have their view taken on board, and while Fayssal may have missed the initial round of discussions (as did I, who had never heard of the WikiCup until today), that's no reason to exclude him now.

However, ANI is not the venue. And secondly – how do you quantify good behaviour? It's a great ideal, but the WikiCup has a very clever scoring system for featured content; how would one factor such an abstract concept as conduct into this? (But as I say, this isn't the place to discuss it...) ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 21:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have already contributed a featured picture about his country. At his userpage I have offered that if he registers for the 2010 cup I will do a second featured picture drive about his culture as soon as he gets a good article promoted. And generally speaking, nothing in this subthread really needs to be at ANI. Would gladly blank this part of the discussion with the consent of the other editors who have posted here. Durova³²² 21:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't belong here, but only because the original appeal to the wikicup doesn't belong here. We obviously should judge disruptive behavior in context, but you suggested that we (effectively) avoid sanctioning someone for disruption because they are involved in a content drive. In this case, turnabout is fair play. I would much prefer that we avoid the politicking around measuring which editor is more valuable to the project or which content contribution outweighs which act of disruption, but if you insist that we do so we may feel the desire to have an even playing field. Protonk (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If it counts as 'politicking' to suggest that a reprieve of a few weeks would be in the best interests of the project when no other urgent reason exists for their immediate block, then what sort participation is apolitical? Durova³²² 01:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

OR is unblocked anyway, so this is all moot. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's the conditional you tacked on there which makes all the difference in the world. If no reason exists for the block, then we can entertain (and should entertain) all sorts of reasons to remove the block. If one does exist, then bringing up a content contribution contest (along with diminishing criticism by citing lack of mainspace participation on the part of criticizing editors) does indeed constitute a bit of politicking. The response is not to disallow it but engage it. Protonk (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling foul on that one, Protonk. It's about site mission. Of course content contributions weigh in blocking decisions: we indef new accounts that are vandalism-only, but if they do useful edits mixed with vandalism we give them more chances. Not an infinite number of chances, but a reasonable amount. There wasn't a compelling reason to drop this load of bricks on him right now rather than next month. There's reason to be confident that he's going to be very productive in the Cup final round. Nothing wrong with raising that factor for discussion, and the people who were most belligerent shouldn't be afraid to have the light shine in their own direction. Want politics? Join a political party. Want charm? Facebook is thataway. This is an encyclopedia. Durova³²² 06:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

On "he's a good editor" excuses

I've never understood why this should excuse anything. If one can't follow policies, then one should get out. We played this game for years with Betacommand, and look what happened in the end. This seems an extremely similar situation to me: popular editor causes trouble, his friends zerg rush WP:ANI to defend him. Popular editor is unblocked and his conduct is swept under the rug. Jtrainor (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ottava Rima: you file, I'll certify. But step off the soapbox, please. Durova³²² 01:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"If one can't follow policies, then one should get out" - and this does not apply to administrators? Majorly talk 01:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I for one am happy to see OR unblocked. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see you blocked. So what? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I count on your vote the next time I run for admin? :) →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The thing about certifying Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ottava Rima is that there need to be previous attempts to resolve the dispute. What's the dispute, and who's tried to resolve it? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to get OR to approach DR in an attempt to resolve disputes as opposed to win them, I have attempted to convince him to use more civil phrasing, and I have attempted to convince him to stop holding grudges. I will certify an RFC that deals with any of those issues and provide diffs of my attempt. Hipocrite (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It is probably worth noting that OR has made about 380 edits this week, of which 23 are in article space. As far as I can tell, all, or virtually all, of the non-article-space edits are conflict-related. As a conservative estimate, we're looking at 20% content and 80% shitstorm here. Hesperian 05:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Ottava Rima/Hero and Leander these are not in article space because I build articles in user space. 6 edits, 9k, 5 edits, 10k, 5 edits, 6k, 4 edits, 5k, 3 edits, 6.5k, 1 edit, 4k, 1 edit, 5k, 3 edits, 10.5k, 1 edit, 4.5k. 32 edits which you do not account for. Furthermore, I often make edits that range 5k+ per single edit so that little number figure you are trying to go off does not reflect anything close to reality. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; what numbers would you consider accurate? Hesperian 05:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I produce a DYK at the rate of about 1 per 1.5 days. A GAN ready article once every 10 days or so, and an FAC ready article about once every 20 days. That is a much higher rate than most people. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You also produce drama and conflict at a much higher rate than most people. Since you dispute my 20-80 ratio, what ratio do you consider accurate? Hesperian 06:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? If you look at those involved, they produce drama at a higher rate than I do. Check my frequency at ANI. I don't involve myself as much as the regulars around here. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well then, what ratio do you consider accurate? Hesperian 06:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this thread has outlived its usefulness. I suggest it be closed, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ottava Rima opened if necessary. Rd232 ^talk 13:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Close it. It should have been collapsed within ANI and archived there, as once he was unblocked, the story was over. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate closure at WQA

I was attacked by two people who made claims against me alleging abuse. I asked them to back it up with diffs and they refused. I posted a WQA. Involved user Jack Merridew closed it because he said there were multiple pages dealing with it. There were no other pages or sections dealing with their false claims against me.

I reopened since there are no archiving standards at WQA and they are supposed to be archived without responses after so many days. As the person complaining, the WQA can be open as long as I feel there is a problem (as long as anyone feels there is a problem). SarekOfVulcan closes it in a different manner and claims that "ANI thread, an RFC, and MFD", although there is no ANI, RFC, or MFD on the matter, and an MFD would not apply to comments by other people. I add a note that the user was involved like I did for the previous one.

Archived by a user saying he wasn't involved, even though he was a participant in the discussion. He claims it was "Redundant given ANI and MfD and RfC". There is no ANI on the comments, no MfD on the comments, and no RfC on the comments.

Involved user Ncmvocalist adds a claim that it was forum shopping even though there are no other pages or threads dealing with the comments. Removed per it being a personal attack header on a page that does not accept such things. Reverted and claimed that my edit was disruptive.

WQA is supposed to handle when people are incivil to each other and making such comments. People, all involved, attempted to close it without any discussion of the inappropriateness of the comments or trying to resolve the matter. If I cannot turn to WQA to handle such things, why is there even a WQA? Is it really appropriate for people to make such claims without proof and close the thread making claims that are patently false? I am posting here because I would like to be able to use standard DR process without the harassment by involved users. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Jack Merridew has made it clear that they are going to sleep so they will not be responding to this immediately. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Jack Merridew is also under mentorship restrictions by ArbCom. "5. User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing." Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

And now you're forum shopping again. People made comments on your patently vindictive motives which were completely fair enough, and now you're making you're usual hysterical claims of "involved users", "incivility" and suchlike just after a massively controversial ANI thread that got you (temporarily) blocked. Don't you think you'd better lay off a little? Moreschi (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Forum shopping is the discussion of the -same- dispute. This current dispute is the closure of a WQA alert, which was about incivility. Moreschi, your understanding of the term is as incorrect as your attempt to delete a page without an AfD or a CSD. Your own mentee is editing in a disruptive manner against his ban lifting sanctions. You should be doing your job and stopping him from acting in such a manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL. You really can't see any other possibility other than you might be right. Everything, and everything, has to be filtered through the paradigm of your singular rightness. An encyclopedia made up entirely of Ottavas might not be too bad, but when other people get involved its a disaster. There isn't even any point trying to have a rational conversation with you. Moreschi (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Unlike you, I carefully consider my actions and I do what I know is right and proper. You jump ahead and delete things without process and then make personal attacks and threats. And other people? I have a long history of being able to work with people that do not agree with me on -anything- and are quite different from me - Haiduc, Ceoil, Malleus, and Ironholds. The only people you work with happen to be those like Jack who go ahead and violate policy for what reason? Is it because you were involved? Is it because he just doesn't like WQA and people discussing incivility? Did you tell him that it would be okay to disrupt WQA by chance? You are his mentor and supposed to be advising him on matters. What exactly did you advise him when he violated his sanctions? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If Jack wants to try and restrain the sound and fury of one of the most disruptive users on the project, I'm not going to try and stop him. Frankly, I think he's wasting his time, but that's his affair. You can't fault him for trying. Moreschi (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone realize I made about a thousand edits to s:The works of Horace; edits getting Ottava's draft of the text into proper form on one of our other projects? Sincerely amused, Jack Merridew 15:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You are on civility probation after making a serious abuse against Wikipedia. You were not to disrupt. Do you honestly think that claiming that a problem was handled at an RfC about another person (thus, can't be), handled at an MfD (which deals with deletions, and thus can't handle it), and an ANI about a block that had nothing to do with it is some how appropriate after claiming that the request was just drama, then you don't deserve to be on probation anymore. You violated your promise to the community and you show no remorse. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"one of the most disruptive users" I didn't realize that Jack was trying to stop your countless disruption over thousands of pages, dozens of inappropriate blocks, reckless use of the delete button, countless harassment, and heavy use of meat puppets. And yes, I've already provided plenty of diffs of the above. Moreschi, you still think that your delete was some how appropriate. Do you have no clue about what WP:ADMIN actually says about admin behavior? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, that would appear to be an unwise statement without some serious evidence to back it up. Do you have any, Ottava? Black Kite 16:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Already provided it. At the RfC that Moreschi deleted, it had evidence in which he was defending Geogre's inappropriate deletion of a page, involved in bad mouthing me afterwards, then indeffed me inappropriately which was followed by Bishonen and Geogre calling for my ban. This was followed by his attacks at Talk:Ludovico Ariosto and other pages in which he pushed things that were blatantly against policy. I have posted such statements and accusations at ArbCom also, and the links have been in record in countless disputes. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine, a brief reply, now. I attempted 'Drama containment'. Ottava seems to have been disrupting the project on a whole bunch of pages for about a full day. Ottava, How about *you* avoid all disruptive editing? Didn't someone comment to this effect somewhere? G'night, Jack Merridew 15:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC) (UTC+8)

How can you consider someone requesting third party mediation against two people who made egregious person attacks as disrupting? And Jack, I am not the one that deleted the page, made an inappropriate block, made an inappropriate mfd, or made inappropriate insults against the person who created the original RfC. So don't blame me for disruption. You violated your ArbCom sanctions and you are subject up to a year block. You really shouldn't have acted in this way and I even warned you not to. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks proper to me. This should be closed as well. Verbal chat 15:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Please show in the WQA guidelines where it is appropriate. There is none to say that, and you would know this before commenting. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This is why I was happy to see OR unblocked. The entertainment value is endless. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a helpful comment, Baseball Bugs... NW (Talk) 15:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You guys unblocked this character on the hope that his behavior would change, and he picked up right where he left off. How helpful was unblocking him?. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Link to verify your claim? The unblock was because the original block was completely inappropriate and wrong, and there was no consensus to claim otherwise. The disruption of the DR process above is the same as the disruption of the DR process then. It only verifies that there is a major problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to see you unblocked. Got a problem with that? :) →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you please leave me alone? You promised a third party admin before to do it and broke it the next day. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I will, if you'll admit that your statement that I "create drama" was hypocritical on your part. Do that, and you'll never hear from me again. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Link? The only thing I can find is Malleus accusing you of that. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't say that exactly.[9] Regardless, the things you accuse me of, you are 10 times as guilty of. I've been told, by editors I respect, that I would have made a good admin. You would have gotten a fair shake from me, acting as an admin. You had your chance to get a fair admin, but you voted no. And I say again, I'm glad you're not blocked. I hope you remain unblocked for as long as possible. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, all I said is that you only edit at ANI from what I see. I, however, have proven that I do not edit only at ANI, so I do not know how I am far worse than you. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't look very far. And I would have been a fair admin to you. You had your chance. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't look to support those who would be fair to me. I look to support those who only show a strong understanding of the problems of the community combined with those with a strong sense of how to deal with those problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You had your chance to get a fair admin, and you said no. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Having you say such things makes me want to oppose a next RfA, Bugs. A "fair admin" would not make such declarations. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Being an editor and being an admin are totally different roles. Most of the opposers don't understand that point. That's how we get snakes in the admin corps, some of whom have been exposed recently. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You have to ask yourself, how did those characters get to be admins? The answer is that they "kissed up". They were dishonest. You're a known quantity. You have strong feelings, but I don't think you're fundamentally dishonest. I would much sooner vote for you for admin, than those who make nice all the time. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• A third party mediation would have been helpful in this case. 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)

What is with closing all these attempts at dispute resolution like it's a game of whack-a-mole? By all means provide links to relevant discussion, but involved parties closing dispute resolution always stinks. Now I propose a one week cooling off period on all discussion of anything related to this series of incidents. After that, RFC/U or whatever dispute resolution is necessary, not closed prematurely by anyone involved. How about that? Rd232 ^talk 15:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I would still like mediation between the two individuals making major claims against me of impropriety without any proof and what I know to be false. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I get that, but I think it would be better all round to leave it a week. Allow time for everyone to calm down a bit. Rd232 ^talk 16:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Then they will claim that it is too old and can't be dealt with. I've dealt with these same individuals with these same process disruptions for a very long time. I'm tired of it. The corruption is outrageous and there is no way to stop it because they disrupt everything. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of uninvolved folks have told this guy to stop it (I was uninvolved, for example). How many more are required? (are the edit tags broken btw?)Verbal chat 16:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Link to where you responded on the WQA? And link to what you told me to "stop"? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that part of the idea behind WQA is that a person is able to vent their frustrations. Closing the WQA one minute after it was created,[10] by the very editor who it is against, is an abuse of this process. "When to avoid filing an alert" states: "When your specific issue is already being discussed elsewhere." SarekOfVulcan stated "really, we've got an ANI thread, an RFC, and MFD -- why do we need a WQA for the same issue?"[11] Is there an "ANI thread, an RFC, and MFD" on the issue of Jack's incivility? I see a lot of edit differences from Ottava Rima, but none from anyone else.Ikip (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The WQA was not against Jack; trying to stir up drama against an editor with whom you have previously had disputes is unhelpful. Black Kite 16:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite, claims of them stirring up drama is inappropriate and I ask for you to strike that immediately. Jack was involved at the MfD, which the comments came up, so they were involved. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's merely needless drama-mongering. Let's stick to the point (i.e. the WQA), shall we? Black Kite 16:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. Ikip (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I'm not even going to bother to respond to these farcial claims on the part of OR, who, by the way, didn't bother to notify me of this thread. (he did notify me of the WQA, but it was closed when I looked at it and even if it wasn't I'd have ignored it anyways for obvious reasons) Jtrainor (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Concur with Jtrainor here. I have no interest in interacting with OR any further, as he's proving himself, across many forums, to not be worth the timesink. UnitAnode 19:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• You aren't part of this thread as you did not close the WQA. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  The thread was about us! Good grief... UnitAnode 20:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  "Inappropriate closure at WQA" Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  Tell me, who did you mention in that thread that had an "Inappropriate closure at WQA"? UnitAnode 20:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems over. The WQA is still closed and two others boxed it since I did; the forum shopping note is still there, too, and that's best. Ottava, want to work on the footnotes? Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You were the last one to edit, and you edit warred it in directly in violation of your ArbCom prohibition. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Cutting the Gordian knot

This was not the desired outcome when I posted at another thread two days ago to seek Ottava's unblock. The request was a nonpartisan gesture of good sportsmanship regarding a competition for content work, not an invitation to resume problems across multiple fora.

• To Ottava Rima: you appear to contend that a tight knit group of senior editors and admins have singled you out to provoke you. If this is true then acting provoked is counterproductive. Moreover, it does not serve your best interests to press the issue so aggressively at this time. You risk validating the claims that your overall approach is too hotheaded, in which case uninvolved parties may stop taking you seriously.

• To Ottava Rima's critics: you appear to contend that Ottava Rima files meritless dispute resolution attempts. If this is true then the best response is to allow those things to go their natural course. It does not serve your best interests to close the attempts prematurely or to act in ways that could give uninvolved parties the impression that his claims are getting suppressed (i.e. it is a bad idea to block someone for filing dispute resolution).

• To the peanut gallery: please get a Netflix membership. ANI does not exist for your amusement.

The solution: the community is not succeeding at settling this and multiple formal dispute resolution attempts have been tried, so this can go to arbitration. If that happens it would be better off as a small case than a large one, so people who don't wish to become named parties would do well to shake cyberhands and go their separate ways. And that goes doubly for peanut gallery members who have been through arbitration before (you know who you are--and yes I'd name you to the case for disruptive editing). Please treat this board as the serious venue for administrative decision-making that it is intended to be. Durova³²² 00:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)