Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ottava Rima

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

I have reverted this RFA to the last revision before its official closing time. This has resulted in several comments being removed; they remain available in the page history. See my comments here for details, and please do not make any further edits to this RFA. — Dan | talk 19:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima

Nomination

Final (61/107/17); Ended 03:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) – Yes, this may seem like a joke because everyone else has a joke RfA and this is me. However, if you want the joke version of the RfA, see this user space page. It was designed to have fun. I decided that we could separate the more jokey stuff to that and keep this serious. Regardless - Most of you may know me. If you've never heard of me, well, I don't know what to say. I oppose a lot of RfA's, I've been involved in some of the most controversial incidents, and I have quite a few people who have expressed their hatred towards me on and off Wikipedia. It happens. It also happens that this RfA page was receiving many views even though it was not created before today. People want to see how I would do at an RfA apparently. Yes, I've been pressured by a lot of people to run. Do I really want the job? Well, decide for yourself. Ask whatever questions you want. If you want followups, I would suggest you simply linking to the talk page so a conversation can happen there. If you want to oppose me, feel free. I wont hold anything against anyone nor challenge it. If other people want to badger opposers (or even badger supporters!) that's fine. I'm staying out of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If you joke support me don't expect to be able to strike it tomorrow. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I don't like to block people. I don't like to delete pages that people work on. I have no problem voicing an opinion in these areas, but they have always left a bad taste in my mouth. What tools would I use? Well, I would definitely use the ability to read deleted pages to help in reviewing problems, helping those to create new articles without the previous one's problem, and other similar things. I would also use that ability to help with history merges. I would use the tools to edit protected pages when it is necessary and also to protect pages (example - images on the mainpage, which get neglected). I would use the tools as leverage to discuss unblocks with other admin, in advocating for users where no one else is willing to defend, and participating in ArbCom enforcement to ensure that there is fair treatment on all sides. I would also help out in Conflict of Interest cases. I would not work unilaterally, and my previous experience with sysop tools always involved constant communication with others while performing actions.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I don't really like this question. I never had, and I never will. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, good contributors should be in the background and invisible. Its not about "me me me" after all. I believe that too many problems come from people thinking only of their best contributions and ignoring the point of the place. If you want to see what I do, check my contribs or my user page. If you want to see what admin work I perform, go look at my wikiversity logs.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I've probably stepped on most people's toes. I'm sure the opposes will come up with new and exciting things to look at, so, here's to them. Now, I will state that I will not respond to the opposes. I believe that the opposes have their right to express their views. So, enjoy.

4. What is the difference between a block and a ban?

A: I was involved in a ban on a user at Wikiversity. It was a nasty situation. It took a lot of discussion and involved Jimbo's help. The user continued to use multiple ISPs to come back and continue plaguing the community. I really hate bans. I find them necessary sometimes, but only as a last resort and only when people are willing to go all the way to ensure that the individual cannot come back. Indef blocks and bans tend to fuel sock puppetry and users doing whatever they can to try and get revenge. Blocks don't necessary have this result. I don't like blocks either, but I can see a time and a purpose for them. Many are too harsh, and some are too light. The worse blocks are those done unilaterally and by an admin who refuses to talk to other admin or the blocked user. Lack of communication only encourages problematic behavior.

5. Would you delete the mainpage?

A: Yes, for 100 dollars. I would block Jimbo for 200 dollars or any member of ArbCom for 500 dollars. Furthermore, I would delete all pages on Intelligent Design, Scientology, Ayn Rand, or any current politician for free simply to remove all the constant fighting from the community. (I kept this in for fun :) ).

Optional question from Dank55

6. Can you give an example where you might "advocat[e] for users where no one else is willing to defend"?

A: There are many users that I have vouched for, defended, or other such things throughout Wikipedia. I have gone out of my way to call for neutrality in situations involving high profile individuals like Mattisse, OrangeMarlin, and Giano II to just random ANI people who seem to be ganged up on, have had people call for Indef blocks way too soon, or other such situations. I spent a lot of time with DGG trying to ensure that one user was not run off the project in a manner that would normally encourage sock puppetry reprisals just a few months ago. I have defended those like Malleus or DougsTech. I have spent time on forums, talk pages, email, and chatrooms discussing with many admin trying to get blocks to be toned down, situations resolved, and the rest. I'm sure there are plenty of situations that I have left out.

6a. How do you feel about Goodmorningworld's support rationale? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A: I'm not really sure. I tend not to look at rationales when I look at RfAs, but I guess I have to since I am not in the voting role. Could I even support "as nom"? Regardless, I would be willing to unblock in situations that I feel are too harsh. I hate excessive timelimits for blocks. Would I go around an admin and do that? No. Would I spend a lot of time talking to them? Yes. I believe in communication between blocker and blockee. If that isn't happening, then the admin did not uphold their end of the block and the block is not doing what it is supposed to do (prevent, not punish). Of course, the "shoutout" and "lickspittle" may undermine the bulk of the comment, but everyone has their own way of phrasing things. I enjoyed the phrase "He's got his idiosyncrasies". :)

Optional question from Jeandré

7. What do you think of April fools edits like [1] on the Main page: de-admin, block, undo, nothing, leave a barnstar, other?

A Wow, I didn't even notice that one. The "hanging" part bothers me, because it is a living person. Sure, it can be forgiven as most things can be. Is it appropriate? Not really. Will it happen? Yes. We are supposed to prevent, not punish. As such, there is little we can do besides not supporting or praising the behavior and hopefully keeping it from becoming popular during the next year. If we turn such people into heroes all they will do is continue the same or even possibly something worse.

Common question from many users

8. Would you possibly run again?

A: The simple answer is no. This is a one time thing, and not because I really care too much either way. If I want to use the power because I am in the mood I have tons of stuff I can do on other projects. Would it make working content easier? Yes. Would it allow arguing for unblocks? Yes. Do I care if I fail? Why would I? If I get over 100 supports or 100 opposes, then I will be equally happy. It would just mean that a lot of people feel strongly about me. Now, 100 neutrals would be great just because. But yeah, why would I bother running again? If the people want me, they want me. If not, then, they probably wont. :)

Optional question from --SB_Johnny | ^talk

9. While you noted above that you didn't want to respond to any of the !votes, could you perhaps summarize the main gist of most of the opposes below, and say whether you agree with their assessments or not? You know I hold you in high regard (almost always :-)), but you also know I'm often a bit put off by your passion for the dramatic. We've discussed "Wikipedian culture" endlessly over the past several months, but I'm not at all certain (especially after reading some of the above) how you intend to improve it.

A The statement about not wanting to respond would be understood by most of the regulars at RfA - there are many fights that break out in the oppose section and there are always claims of "badgering". If someone wants to discuss things with me, that is fine. I have contacted some people with more information, but I respect everyone's oppose. I think it is amusing how many people have stated that I am a drama mongerer, or that I'm on AN or ANI a lot. If you look, I am rarely there unless I am dragged there first with many responses being that there was no real problem and just a dramatic situation. During early ban proposals that were mostly drama filled, I was responding with just more lines of poetry because no real statement was necessary. But everyone has their own view of everything. What are the main opposes? Mostly "Here is a link to where you upsetted me in the past." Look at EVula's for his overreaction, for example. But that's just how some people are. How would I help Wikipedian "culture"? Probably in no way. I don't like to participate in much. I only involve myself in processes that help me build content or deal with content building in some way. If I find a major problem I will take it to a noticeboard or someone would take me there. Am I outgoing? No. Am I trying to win friends? No. Could I have easily kissed ass for 6 months, support 40 RfAs, and use Huggle to get 10k more edits in order to easily pass an RfA? Yes, as many people have, especially the many people that I oppose and who get in under "No Big Deal" or "Why Not". See, -that- is what Wikiculture is. It is also why I stick to the Encyclopedia and don't really care about the rest. The tools would be used to further my ability to write content. The only blocking related and Arb enforcement powers would be to have another content editor around to help defend content editors and ensure fairness. Those like Giano and Orangemarlin are great content contributors but they are given excessive punishments which disrupt the Encyclopedia as a whole. Someone needs to be willing to voice their defense.

Follow-up: Well, I'm pretty sure I qualify as one of those passed through under the "no big deal" clause. The problem is that you've stated that you want to stand up for "the little guy", but then you give Giano and Orangemarlin as examples. Those aren't little guys. Like it or not the Wikipedia community is an online community like any other, and if you manage to piss off enough people, you'll be held to account. (And I know exactly nothing about why they got into trouble, but the very fact that I know their names and know they got into trouble means they must have gotten entangled in some seriously loud dramas.)

The ideal of wiki-culture is that everything should be no big deal. Whether you're on AN, AN/I, RANDOM/ACRONYM, etc. has nothing to do with it.

For those not familiar with "outer-wikimedia", I was (am?) Ottava's custodian mentor on Wikiversity. As your mentor there, I saw you reach out to help even those who disagreed with you (and/or even disliked you!), but I don't think you've lined up those connections for this RFA. The fact that you've been accused of having poor social skills should tip you off here: you have very good social skills, and if people think you're clueless, you've obviously been putting your worst foot forward.

Sounds to me like you're both overly confident on the one hand (sticking up for the little guy), and not realizing your potential on the other (you can make the community better, if only in small ways). You could be a truly great admin (and Admin) if you tried, and focused. So I'll rephrase my question: what small paths to improvement would you be willing to focus on? What small difference can you make? Tools or no tools, you can help. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find where I said "little guy", but that doesn't matter. :) I stand up for people of all types. I stood up for someone who was blocked indef when their previous block was 24 hours in order to stand by that the progression is there so as to not seem abusive and chase people off wiki (and then turning to vandalism, socks, etc). There are many others of all types. One area was me standing up for j.delanoy, who is definitely not a little guy. Mostly, I am forced into a position of devil's advocate even if I believe that my view should be mainstream and not simply opposition. Sometimes people listen and I am able to get consensus on my side. Other times it doesn't happen. Does that mean I should give up fighting for what I believe is right? No. Do I really care if this RfA fails? No. As I stated, this was an RfA created because many people wanted it, even those who I knew would oppose me. I wont be on Wikipedia for that long of a time. I'm going to go out of my way to make sure that the people I need to help me with my work stick around until that time, and that the people who earn my respect are treated with dignity and respect by the community. If you want to see what I care about, its the stuff on my user page. I don't care about Wikiquette, ANI, AN, Fringenoticeboard, NPP, ANV, AfD, Pages needing protection, or any of that. I'm not a "Wikignome". The only personality that matches is Wikidragon, and, as you can see from the opposes, we are a group that is not liked by the gnomes, elves, and people who just troll those boards above waiting to devour random billygoats. A dragon is a species of myth, and people don't like their reality infiltrated by what shouldn't exist. This is an RfA that was prepared 100% opposite of every other RfA, for 100% different reasons of every RfA, and just proof of how Wikipedia feels about those like me. As I stated - I won't be running an RfA again. I really don't care. I don't want to be a Crat, an Oversiter, a CUer, an ArbCom, or even a founder. Hell, once I finish my content creation goals I will leave those pages to the dedicated "fixers", to people who fight vandalism, and all of the other paper pushing jobs. Most people know exactly how I feel on the matter, but I will just put it down in writing so we can all see it once again. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs, follow-up to the above question

10. You have said (in your answers to questions 1 and 9) that you intend to "defend" or "advocate for" users who would otherwise be left out to dry. Can you please clarify why you need admin tools to do that, and how admin tools will allow you to "defend" users in a way that you haven't been able to do previously? Several opposers have expressed the concern that your answers to these questions imply that you intend to wheel-war; if that is not your intention and these opposers are misunderstanding, can you clarify how you intend to defend the kind of users you're talking about?

A: Admins rarely listen to non-admins in terms of their blocks. Unless you have the ability to unblock, the blocking admin rarely would consider any claims that the block is too long or excessive. In Arb enforcement, this causes a lot of unneeded drama. Yes, those like Giano and OM were at Arb for a reason. However, a 2 day block for a minor thing is less drama causing than a week block, but many people don't understand. Also, blocking notes tend to be unfair. Wheel warring is the reinstating of an issue. It is clear that I would only have the bit for leverage and not actuality. If there was an admin not willing to discuss the matter, then yes, the block should be overturned but mostly on the principle that blocks are not punitive and an admin not willing to talk about it (with others and even the blocked user) turns it into a punishment. Anyway, I would be working with other admin, especially on ArbCom enforcement. I know those like Tiptoety, Elonka, Tznkai, and others who work in the area, so it wouldn't be hard for me to work alongside of them and finding the appropriate response to certain issues. I also know Giano, OM, and many others under ArbCom enforcement and they know that I understand what it is like to be a content contributor and how it feels to be in the middle of a big content creation while coming "under fire".

Optional question from fahadsadah (talk,contribs)

11. In Q5, you said that you would block Jimbo for $200, or an Arbitrator for $500. Why do you think the Arbitrators (or their blocking, anyway) are worth 2.5x more than Jimbo apiece?

A: Jimbo gets blocked randomly and his block log is, realistically, meaningless. An Arbitrator is more of a regular person who is put into a position and comes understress. Part of the $500 dollars would be going to buying them food and drinks in order to help them overcome the additional stress. :)

Response: Jimbo has only been blocked five times - less than half your eleven fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 15:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Read again - my block log is only 5 times. Of those, three are direct CoI violations and had other inappropriate involvements. Then, you can talk to Nandesuka and see how he feels about me. We have worked together on multiple articles, so your comment falls flat. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Delicious carbuncle (talk)

12. In your answer to Q9, you state that you are rarely at AN or ANI unless you are "dragged there first with many responses being that there was no real problem and just a dramatic situation" - when I posted my concerns on ANI about an admin telling an editor's ISP -- without being able to provide any evidence -- that the editor was committing "libel" on WP, you inserted yourself into the discussion to label it as drama. Furthermore, you suggested I be blocked for blatant disruption. While I appreciated your input and considered asking for my account to be blocked, do you feel this is consistent with your statement above and will reflect your actions as an admin? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A If you notice, I was dragged into ANI that day on another thread. :) And on that thread, many people had the same feeling as I did about your concerns. You complained over j.delanoy's actions. He is one of the most highly respected vandal cleanup admin here. You have to expect a backlash from that. If I lose supports because I defended j.delanoy's actions, then really, so be it. I did what was right. If people like me are ruined for protecting people like him, then it is complete worth it. J.delanoy is one of a handful of editors that I would go to great lengths to make sure that he isn't harassed and chased out of this project. Your complaint there was frivolous and an attack on his integrity.

I'm personally supporting your bid to become an admin, if that wasn't clear to people reading my question. I don't think your stance in that very limited discussion is the reason that anyone would fail to vote for you. I'm sure jdelanoy appreciates your efforts to shield him from concerns about his actions, but as I said repeatedly in that thread, this wasn't about the actions of an individual admin so much as an attempt to discuss how such matters should be handled. Is it fair to summarize your answer as: "expect more of the same"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI is for drama. There is very little that goes on there except drama. Naming j.delanoy in the manner that you did could only be problematic. You stated things in such a manner that could only be statements that he abused his power. If you wanted a general discussion, there are other places, like AN, Village Pump, etc. As Durova put it: "Threats and harassment are concerns at ANI, not actual action of this type." Staying on ANI there could be only one result - j.delanoy is called into question. You have to understand the position that you put people in. If you put it somewhere else then the tone would be different. However, everyone knows that good admin get pulled into ANI and tarred quickly. I would rather be damned than to let that happen to someone who puts in the constant hours into reverting vandalism and preserving the integrity of tens of thousands of pages. So no, it wasn't anything personal to you. Would I use admin powers in that situation? No. Would I go to great lengths to ensure that random passerbys who feed off drama don't pounce on him? Yes. Regardless of what people below in either section may say about my contributions, anyone can replace me. It would be hard to find someone with the will, commitment, and integrity of j.delanoy. I'm sorry if I hurt you, upsetted you, or made it seem like you were being ignored. My only concern there was protecting his reputation. As you can see from the many responses below, reputation means a lot here. If you want to talk, you can send me an email or find my talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place to revive this dead issue, but the ANI thread was intended to be about how ISP contacts should be handled, not chastising Jdelanoy's action which prompted the thread. That said, Jdelanoy told an editor's ISP that the editor was committing an actionable offence (libel) on Wikipedia. When questioned about the allegation of libel, Jdelanoy's response was ""Don't know, I can't remember. In my email I said that there was libel, but I don't remember exactly what (or if) it was". I found that concerning. He may be a tireless vandal fighter, but blindly defending any admin's actions without regard to the specifics seems like very poor judgement on your part, although your loyalty is commendable. Very little of this seems to relate to my original question, but I think you've answered it. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I've attacked jdelanoy for his actions before. However, I don't think ANI was the place to do such .But yeah, to address directly my feelings about ANI - I loathe the place. WP:DRAMA use to be a redirect to the place for a reason. I find it amusing that people below say that I frequent the place, but if you do a search, you will find me appear in very few threads. I don't know why it is like it. I don't really want to know why it is like that.

Questions from Many People

13. How do you feel about BLPs? What is your experience with them? Flagged Revisions?

A. As you can see from my contribs, I have spent a lot of time on biographies, living and not living. I primarily work on the dead because there is far more information and Wikipedia is in need of expanding the pages of many notable writers who get little beyond stubs or uncited personal essays. However, I have worked on quite a few BLPs. My most notable BLP experience was at Rosalind Picard. I came in there at the behest of User:Kim Bruning because he respected my ability to write biographies and to perform research. He is a computer science person, and I felt that I could help with the page since it was damaged by fighting. Most notable, it was User:Moulton (since banned), who worked with Rosalind Picard, vs a large group of people labeled by many as the "ID Cabal" because of their interest in Intelligent Design WikiProject pages. Regardless of either side's view, I felt that the page needed to be expanded, which I quickly did. Then I worked with both sides to find more information and research to state -everything- about her notable career. The peacock adjectives, the labeling, and the rest were removed. The lines were worded to be more direct to what the source say, and attribution was given to specific people's -opinions-. Both sides became content with the page afterward. During the long time of trying to fix the page, there was a lot of fighting on the talk page. At one time, I was accused of "white washing" because I expanded the page and changed some of the hard core stances to be more informative and less declarative. This was followed by a stance teasing me in ottava rima. I responded with a poem of my own. A poetry battle broke upon the page, and the poems can be found here and here. The fighting was diffused for the most part and people were able to see that my concern was not to have either side win but to make it a much better page than it was. Thus, the fighting was able to come to an end. Do I think things like Flagged Revisions could have accomplished this? No. Could they help? Perhaps. The only way such partisan fighting can come to an end is when people are willing to stand up and be neutral, to discuss things with -everyone-, and to try and build consensus between -all parties- in a fair and level manner. They must be able to keep from being bogged down by criticism and let everyone know that you care about the encyclopedia -first-. 99.9% of people involved in such fights will recognize this and will let the improvements happen. I have worked on many BLPs since then, and I have been able to help both sides work together in a neutral manner. I have helped new editors be able to talk to old editors and not get discouraged, I have helped the actual BLP subjects be able to voice their concerns in a manner that will be listened to, and I have tried to be as fair as possible. BLPs are a delicate matter, especially when there is a level of controversy.

General comments

• Links for Ottava Rima: Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Ottava Rima can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ottava Rima before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted on the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Maybe we should put up a huge notice on this page saying "This is NOT a joke", since a lot of people below seem to be treating it as such. I guess that's what comes out of adding an RfA on April 1, but that's no reason for people not to read through it and see what it actually is. Chamal :  Chat  01:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Can we also note his name is Ottava Rima, not Ottawa. Thank you..  GARDEN  18:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Quick comment. Ottava Rima said and I quote in his nom statement, " If other people want to badger opposers (or even badger supporters!) that's fine. I'm staying out of it". Well that not what I see. America69 (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • That's really neither here or there; it's been a few days, things change, some people criticized Ottava for not commenting on opposes.... either way, it shouldn't play a big role in the closer's decision. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I know, I was trying to point that out. As you said, it won't matter. America69 (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I haven't challenged opposes. I have challenged material that I have pointed out as false and damaging. Its one thing to oppose. Its another thing to lie while opposing. Their oppose can stay, but the truth needs to be heard. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support for epic lulz. Nice chap, too; calls a spade a spade (or WP:DICK a WP:DICK). Ironholds (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Personally I think you are a WP:DICK, but I am sure we can find things we both can agree on. Lucifer (Talk) 03:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support per the IRC cabal, der. Seriously though, I admire users who have stepped on toes. I think people who haven't stepped on any toes probably haven't got into any disputes, which I could see as an issue down the road. How can you solve a dispute if you haven't been in one yourself. Personally, I believe that there are far too many admins who haven't had any run-ins with disputes, whether being personally involved or being an outside helper (ie WP:MEDCAB). I think learning from past experiences is best, but there are far too many admins who have no experience whatsoever in solving disputes and would probably be clueless when they encounter a dispute (and hey, we have them every day). So, uh, yeah. For not being afraid to step on a few toes, I support you. While what you've done has most likely been in an effort to further the interests of the community, I still think this RFA will not succeed. Either way, I want my opinion to be clearly known. We need more admins who are willing to step on a few toes, to get the job done. We, as a community, need to change our rationale to support users in RFA from "Have they annoyed me/anyone, at any stage in their wiki-career, to "Are they fit to be an administrator? Do they have the experience and skills required to be an admin?". In my opinion, to Ottava, that question answers a Yes. (And sure, he's had his fair share of fuck-ups, but haven't we all?.) Ottava would be a net positive to the project as an admin, and if all else fails, we have ways to deal with issues down the track if need be. What's to lose? Steve Crossin :  Chat  03:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Serious support - Ottava Rima may be a distasteful name in many members of the community's mouths, but while he can be a drama-whore at times and a troll at others, Ottava does do a substantial amount of positive work here, as witnessed by Samuel Johnson, Rosalind Picard and Nicolò Giraud. The first, which Ottava is a substantial contributor to, is now a featured article; the second was a heavily disputed biography of a living person that he was involved on and helped bridge the conflicting sides, and the third was one that he was involved in a heavy dispute with a person who wanted the individual to be described as a pederast.

   I've been in a dispute with him before during the FAC for USS Connecticut (BB-18), but his checking of the prose for plagiarism, no matter how much I hated him doing it, he did make the article better in the end. Since then, I've had him check two other articles I have written for the same problems, and his efforts were extremely beneficial to the articles in question.

   I don't think that anyone can dispute that Ottava does good here on the project, and that's what you should be voting on. Could he do better with civility? Of course; I don't think anyone would say he couldn't. Do you think he would block or use his admin powers in a dispute in which he is a party in? No. Would he use the tools wisely? As evidenced by Wikiversity, yes. Would he be a net positive as an admin? I think so—the drama-ing will come up whether he is an admin or not, so the I believe that addition of the mop can and will only be a net positive for the project. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

5. Support Until It Sleeps :  Chat  03:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Is this meant to be a joke? Either way, I support. -download | sign! 03:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   Ottava Rima has indicated that this is indeed a legitimate request. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Support per Idi. Durova^Charge! 03:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)\

   This is apparently a serious request. Should your support be taken seriously? Hipocrite (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   And how many supports in regular RfA's are taken seriously? I can name at least 30 supports that mention food, or something similar. Synergy 04:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   Have I been editing today in a way that appears nonserious? Durova^Charge! 05:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

8. Strong Support Surprisingly, I support this. The user is a net positive to any project that he is involved in, and he could do serious good with the mop. Watching him occasionally inspires me to come back to Wikipedia and edit, and he's a nice enough guy to talk to and interact with, even when he does step on toes. Sure, I've argued with him before, and I'll probably do it again, but he's got good points, and in my opinion which stems in part from my admin experience on Wiktionary excellent judgement. --Neskaya _talk 03:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Support All joking aside, I didn't ever expect to say this--OR and I had a particularly heated encounter over something that spilled from here to Commons once--but for all his faux bluster, he's often one of the lone voices of reason in many, many, many, many heated debates. Does he sprinkle that reason with extra cayenne pepper sometimes? Yes. But so do I--I try to be a smart-ass about it, OR goes in with firing off flare guns. Does it get the Right Point across? Yes. Do I support him? Yes. rootology :  Chat  03:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Ottava's a he? I always thought of OR as a female's name... anyways... I doubt this RfA will pass, and can't believe Ottava honestly expects it to pass either, but I do believe that OR has the best interest of WP at heart---even if he (?) can be a... consider this a Moral Support.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support - (1) I believe he has the project's best interests at heart. (2) Edit tools are extremely useful for content contributors, and I strongly resent the split between 'content contributors' and 'admins', this isn't rocket science and we are all in this together. Plenty of FA wirters are admins, 'crats and arb members, (3) Yes he has had some temperament issues, but I am positive he will be watched closely for misuse of tools. Given that I believe there is a better than 50% chance OR will be a significant net positive, so let's give him ago. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Support - (moved from oppose) despite my lame Apr 1 oppose, I would have no issues with this user as an administrator. ∗ \ / (⁂) 05:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose for a reason I haven't thought up yet. tfeSil (aktl) 08:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Felt that I should elaborate on this support. Basically, the civility issues are worrying, and I have been on the opposite side of an argument with him and found him to be extremely irritating. However, I trust that he has enough sense to preform the low-risk duties stated in Q1 without causing issues. He may be trollish at times, but he has shown during his tenure at Wikiversity that he does care about this project, and he is able to yield the tools responsibly. ∗ \ / (⁂) 08:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

14. Support An admin who is prepared to fight his corner against a prevailing tide can be a great thing if it makes the rest of us pause and perhaps better consider our position. OR's position on what he would and wouldn't do also makes it clear this isn't a power trip. --GedUK  07:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Supporrt iMatthew :  Chat  10:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Support A shoutout to my man Ottava, who is NOT an admin lickspittle like so many molluscs who I've seen slither onto this page. If elected (like that would ever happen, LOL) Ottava would be like an editor's advocate right in the middle of the admin corps. He would not be afraid to unblock users blocked by arbitrary, capricious, moronic admins who should be pushing a mop (literally: cleaning the toilets at McDonalds). He's got his idiosyncrasies and he'd make mistakes so we'd have to keep a close eye on him, but the net benefit would greatly outweigh any damage he'd cause.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Well informed of the role, isn't going to be intimidated by anyone. Sure, he "lacks restraint" now and then, but I think that can be a good attribute in certain cases—this being one of them. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Yes Ottava is brusque and has a bad temper, but has a CLUE and there's no reason to think he'd abuse tools; in fact adminship might take the "rough edge" off. Remember WP:NBD, users who've been here and done all the stuff Ottava's done are supposed to get the bit by default. Ottava, moreover, has so many "enemies" it's difficult to see how, even if he wished to be abusive, he could. Wikipedia actually needs admins like Ottava, if only to balance things out a little more. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Support. Switched to Strongest possible support, from the Dark Lord of the Underworld, trumping the recent Stronger oppose than possible. I haven't always seen eye-to-eye with Ottava, but then there isn't anyone I've always seen eye-to-eye with, and I hope there will never will be, as that would mean I'd been cloned. Ottava clearly has the project's best interests at heart, so it's difficult to see him abusing a few extra buttons many of which, like blocking, I doubt he'd be making very much use of anyway, Most of all though I agree with Deacon said just above. Wikipedia needs more admins like Ottava very badly IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Ottava has the temperament of an artist that is for sure. He is passionate about this project and sometimes this can lead to heated debates. But he does listen to arguments and reflects. Our paths have crossed a few times and all my interactions with him have been positive. I have great respect for his content contributions. Graham Colm ^Talk 13:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Support per Casliber and others. I admit to having had less direct contact with Ottava than some of you seem to have had, but in all the contacts I have had with him he has always struck me as having the best interests of the project at heart, and I have no reason to think that will change upon becoming an admin. Also, given his statements, it's hard to see that he'll do anything wrong with the tools. John Carter (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Oh, sure. Anyone who managed to get blocked for "incivility" on Wikipedia Review can't be all bad. Seriously, although looking at the current voting this won't pass, I think Ottava would be perfectly good at the job; he can be a grade-A PITA, but (as with his spiritual cousin Giano) I do trust him to know when to turn "asshole mode" off. Forceful ≠ disruptive. Not necessarily, anyway. Iridescent :  Chat  15:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Support He is already an admin on another major Wikimedia project and I don't see anyone turning up evidence of him deleting pages and banning users he doesn't like. I would say that this proves that he can engage in heated and stressful debates and argue forcefully without abusing his power, and would be able to do the same on the English Wikipedia. I am casting this vote at a time where there are actually more Oppose votes than Support votes, and I don't predict a sudden turning of the tides, so I am looking forward to a future date at which the candidate may decide to run again. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Which Wikimedia project?--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 03:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

    Wikiversity. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

24. Rima for President. Oh, you've got one? Last year? Can't wait four more years, bring in the crown and the hatchet. Full support. NVO (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Support Casliber said it best. Jake Wartenberg :  Chat  19:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Per above.--Giants27 ^T/C 20:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Support – TheLeftorium 20:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Yes. He is manly, and Catholic. SBHarris 20:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Admin is no big deal. While his temperament is unusual, I have no cause to question OR's honesty, and if he sticks to his self-created admin role -- won't block or delete, will question admin action -- it may help to prevent groupthink in the admin corps. In short, he's a good guy, has a precise role envisioned which I think would be a good thing for Wikipedia. . This is a unique support, since normally I don't support people who I think have temperament issues -- really, it's conditional on his acting as promised. Ray^Talk 21:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Support though as some of the opposers said below, do we really want to tie up our best content contributors with the bit? Regardless, clear positive. Black Kite 22:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Support  Excellent contributions to the encyclopedia, decent interval since last block, and would be the only admin that could keep some of our more contentious 'good article writers' in check. --StaniStani  22:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Support - As others have already noted, Ottava Rima is a "distasteful" WP:DICK with a short temper, and a difficult and confrontational manner. Full support (and expecting the same in my RFA self-nom). 76.10.136.135 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

32. Support While I've seen that he does speak very bluntly, I think he has the best intentions for WP at heart. Killiondude (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
33. miranda :  Chat  01:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Support per Casliber. The sysop flag isn't permanent, and it can be fairly easily removed in the case of abuse. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    What alternate reality are you from where the sysop bit is fairly easily removed? It's my experience that it is usually overly dhramaful...---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Desysopping is indeed a drama-laden process, but it's not impossible by any stretch of the imagination; in addition, there are numerous means of carrying out a desysop. Also, as evidenced by my above vote, I feel Ottava has the best interest of the encyclopedia at heart, and any reasonable administrator would voluntarily resign the bit if it is suggested they do so. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    I can only imagine that if I did anything that would be eligible for desysop someone should come to my house to see if I am still alive and/or held captive. Regardless, if Jimbo, Cary Bass, or ArbCom members were to ask for my ops, I would definitely hand them over. Why? Because I like those guys. See, the thing with "adminship is no big deal" is that I don't really care enough to keep it at all costs, especially when I value the hierarchy. I've followed Jimbo on many projects and have stood by his decisions. I have a lot of faith in Arbcom. Cary is just a great guy in general. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

35. Support OR is an excellent editor who asks the hard question and takes stands that should be taken, but aren't due to the herd instinct here at WP. Pity this won't pass, but I'm nailing my support to the door.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Oh noes, not a Luther reference. My poor Catholicism will be shaken by such a comparison. Heh. :) Now, if your support will only help convince Wikipedia to remove indulgences. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

36. Support I disagree with this editor's views on (nearly) everything to do with the wiki and agree that there is a tendency towards argumentative and tendentious behaviour. However, I see no evidence that this user will abuse the tools; indeed I am fairly confident he would not based on his contributions here and elsewhere. The idea that we should refuse otherwise qualified candidates for adminship on the basis we would prefer them to concentrate their efforts elsewhere is nonsensical and antithetical to the idea of a voluntary project such as Wikipedia. Any assistance that this editor can provide on admin tasks, no matter how small, is welcome. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Seems a fine candidate who's able to learn from mistakes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Though I usually agree with him on most things, I have to disagree with Wizardman. I think that our best content contributors make the best admins-they have experience with writing and research. These are two elements I find essential to a successful adminship. Best of luck, Ottava. Ceranllama chat post 21:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
39. Strong Support - Ottava Rima's pleasant attitude and willingness to help out with any problem make him (or her) a pleasure to deal with. Will be a shining example for other admins, as he (or she) has been for other editors in general. I look forward to watching Ottava Rima -- whether male or female -- interacting with newcomers to WP, an area in which I feel he (or she) will excel. I only wish that I had been in a position to nominate him (or her) myself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
40. support - the cabal likes admins who go off half cocked, but to many are getting deadmin'ed (see Ryulong, and SlimVirgin for recent ones), and the more recent group of admins seems shy on actual involvement with the content and content disputes. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
41. Support Brusque? Yes. Malicious? No. A great content creator? Yes. And I'm sure a good choir boy like OR will recall Matthew 7:3-5 -- I think some people in the Oppose and Neutral sections need to look that one up. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
42. Support - my interactions with the user have been uniformly pleasant and helpful. He's help build up the encyclopedia and I'm sure would be an asset as an administrator. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
43. Support per Horace. OR is at heart a dedicated scholar. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
44. Support I think this user has turned around and can do a lot of good for the project. --Adam in MO Talk 13:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
45. Weak Support. Despite the drama problems I think that Ottava will be a benefit to the project. Malinaccier (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
46. Weak Support It's obvious which direction this is going; but, I think that Ottava cares about what is right for the wiki. His help to others in IRC, and his contribs indicate an honest loyalty for the community. I'd strongly suggest toning down some of the rhetoric on site between now and the next RfA, and then I could say "Strong Support". — Ched :  Yes?   : ©  21:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    Comment: I also think that at times the humor is misplaced. There are times for humor, but it shouldn't be a whim to just say "I'd delete the main page for a $100. Not everyone gets that kind of "funny" — Ched :  Yes?   : ©  21:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    I'd do it for $50, so don't let me ever have the bit. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

47. Support as I think that controversial admins are much more fun than controversial editors. Plus, with most of the controversy, OR is usually right in the way he steers the boat, even if it is in a somewhat sociopathic way. But we're all at computers, so nobody can actually ause harm, so to me, that's fine. It's called tough love. --rm 'w avu 22:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    We can cause plenty of harm when using a computer as a proxy. How about libel, slander, and lies? Those are just the start -- people can cause plenty of harm behind a computer. We are riddled with BLP issues left right and center, and people complaining to OTRS about issues with their articles that they are upset about. Remember Poetlister? Remember Eco? We have the ability to cause real world harm, even if it is primarily through the medium of technology. The internet is just another medium. (This sounds a little strong in my head, it isn't intended to be, I have tried to rephrase and failed) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 22:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    Neuro, soon you're going to be suggesting that there are real people with real feelings behind those computers who might be hurt by "sociopathic" admins. What's next - suggesting that the BLP subjects aren't fictional? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

    Okay, now that is hilarious. By the way some BLPs are treated around here you can pretty much get away with labeling them "in-universe" and it would seem to fit. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

48. Moral support, per our previous good interactions. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
49. Support - We need more admins who aren't scared to speak their mind. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
50. Support in part per this moving essay. I am slightly saddened to see this RfA fall to the opposes. Any admin bright enough to see Wikipedia in this light is a rarity. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 23:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
51. On the fence but support: I just moved this from neutral, but I went through and carefully read OR's answers again. I am a big proponent of WP:DEAL but also believe that WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are necessary qualities of a sysop. Notwithstanding the civility issues, I feel that OR could be a useful member of the admin corps by putting a different perspective on the sometimes-stuffy persona of the common admin and his willingness to understand the more difficult editors. His input on the Oppose: Too many admins currently situation is a prime example. I also realize that this RfA is almost sure to fail but I ask OR to do two things: temper your 'tude for 6 months to a year and within that time I will renom you for round two. I think that he could be a wiki-diamond in the rough. Viele Glück!--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 01:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
52. Support Nothing I've seen convinces me that Ottava would abuse the tools. Seems to have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.--Dycedarg ж 02:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Conscientious editor who will be an asset on Wikipedia. JASpencer (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
54. Support per good arguments. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
55. Support, I think there are may be administerial uses for this person (taps nose in a thinking fashion). Malicious? Manly? Mmmm... --candle•wicke 02:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
56. User:Mixwell/Rainbow Support He's a awesome guy. Boy needs the rainbow. ☟ These comments below should be ignored. --Mixwell :  Chat  03:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
57. Support Ottava has been very cautious with the use of tools at wikiversity and has asked for advice from more experienced custodians (admins) when unsure and I feel that this would also hold true at wikipedia. He has made great efforts to mediate disputes in very tense situtations and has gone to great lengths to help users who have had difficulty interacting with the community. As a moderator Ottava has remained level headed and shown a great deal of patience. Based on my experience and interactions with Ottava at wikiversity I feel that he can be trusted to use the tools wisely. --mikeu ^talk 13:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
58. Strong Support: I understand why many might object to Ottava receiving admin status, but in many cases the reasons many editors might object are the same reasons I would give to have his privileges increased. This user’s knowledge of WP guidelines borders on annoying, but he always seems to err on the side of legalism which can be frustrating to those of us who have our own ideas of how editing should be handled. Having worked with him on several poetry articles over the past 6 months, I have yet to see him make an edit that was not focused on improving the quality of WP whether it was on a mainspace, a user talk page, DYK, or any other special page. In some cases, he has sided against me in disputes because my understanding of WP policy was flawed, despite the fact that he and I were working together. If this were a popularity contest, as I fear some RfA’s are, then I could understand how a decision against adminship could be validated, but if this decision is to be based on edits and actions alone, I can see no reason to object. Mrathel (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
59. Logical Support. Let me get this straight. People are opposing because Ottava MIGHT be a bad admin here, right? But he already has a proven track record of being an admin over at Wikiversity. So either the supporters at wikiversity were crazy, or the opposers here are crazy. Seeing that wikiversity has not crashed and burned, I'll let folks here do the math. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Don't get me wrong, Ottava Rima is a royal pain in the rear end at times. Goodness knows we've had our issues. However, over time, Ottava has gotten himself a clue, and sufficiently so that he went and successfully obtained admin rights on a wikimedia wiki. I support or oppose based on whether someone will be a competent admin, not whether I like them or not.
60. Can't imagine him misusing the tools. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
61. Strong support --KP Botany (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I see Ottava as one of those people that act as the safety valve to the rest of the community, much like the dissenters who keep the community in check. From experience, though, such users are not very suited to adminship. I do not believe that Ottava has the temperament or the attitude to be an role model and an administrator. While I respect his abilities, I cannot accept the impulsive traits that he has shown through his editing tenure. bibliomaniac15 03:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   If being a role model ever became a requirement for administrators I believe that most of the present admin corps would be forced to stand down. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   Unfortunately it seems so. This is not the place, though, to pass judgment on them; this is Ottava's RFA. bibliomaniac15 22:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   Perhaps you might at least agree that it seems a little inconsistent to hold RfA candidates to a higher standard than administrators are held to though. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   I suppose that depends on whether you want the average standard to go up or down. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   Could it go down much further? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

   Don't tempt the gods. --KP Botany (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Lacks restraint. Hipocrite (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Strongest oppose possible Likley to abuse tools by unblocking blatent vandals who were blocked after violating what OR uniquely (and more-often-than-not, incorrectly) interprets rules to be. A consumate troll - worse than me. Hipocrite (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose Needs to not add jokes and Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   This is an actual RFA, not a joke. bibliomaniac15 03:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   Simple mentioning anything like that especially in RFA is a joke.DougsTech (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   Anything like what? Ironholds (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   "Yes, for 100 dollars. I would block Jimbo for 200 dollars or any member of ArbCom for 500 dollars. Furthermore, I would delete all pages on Intelligent Design, Scientology, Ayn Rand, or any current politician for free simply to remove all the constant fighting from the community. (I kept this in for fun :) )." Like that. He obvoiusly does not think it's serious enough. Sadly this is becoming more common among the admins. DougsTech (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   Sadly? Admins are far too serious, from what I see currently. X! :  Chat  03:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   "more common"? Well then surely he should be made one, if he now fits in the common mould quite nicely. Admins are not meant to be humourless, paper-pushing hardarses; a sense of humour and fun is allowed, today of all days. Still, any sane crat will discount your standard oppose anyway, so arguing is a waste of time. Ironholds (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, you are wasting your (and everyones) time arguing here.DougsTech (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose - Concerns about temperament and lack of restraint. Cirt (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
5. I am actually of the belief that our best article writers should not become admins. Why? Well, for each deletion batch they're doing is another chunk of article that goes unwritten. It's easier to find people to close XfDs and block peeps then it is to find genuine article writers. This o vote is so that Ottava can do what best not just for the 'pedia, but for himself. Wizardman :  Chat  04:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   He clarified the above point, but my oppose still stands due to behavioral concerns throughout this oppose section. Wizardman 16:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose. Great contributions, but I question whether OR has the, er, social skills for the position. In many ways, an administrator is the wiki- equivalent of a customer service representative.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose - Not enough article contributions. ∗ \ / (⁂) 04:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Moving to support ∗ \ / (⁂) 04:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Oppose From what I have seen of OR, I just don't see them having the patience to deal with the silliness that admins must patiently deal with every day. They have very strong views, which is great, we need people to provide different viewpoints here, I just worry that they could come off too strong. Since RfA is essentially an endorsement of a user, I just don't feel comfortable endorsing a user which I feel can be a bit too strong at times. --Terrillja _talk 05:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose I am very sorry but I don't feel that you are at the point where you can take up the responsibilities of an administrator. For example, this post [2] has me a bit worried about your judgement. In addition, in your first answer you stated, " I would use the tools as leverage to discuss unblocks with other admin..." what leverage do you hope to gain? Discussion plays a vital role in being an administrator and I feel that you would be too quick to go rogue and serve your own purpose. I'm sorry I cannot support you right now. Icestorm815 (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Strongest oppose imaginable I can't think of anyone less suited to be an admin. An argumentative time-waster who refuses ever to admit he is in the wrong, Ottava had to be placed under mentorship (to avoid a community ban) from August to December last year [3]. A brief example of his way of going about things can be seen on the talk page of Alfred, Lord Tennyson from February this year [4] where he berates User:Contaldo80 for removing the edits of a blatant vandal/copyright violating SPA Jordie0108 (talk · contribs). Ottava claims Contaldo80 doesn't have "consensus" to revert such trolling. Read the rest of the conversation. Ottava doesn't seem to have a clue about policy but he is, as Contaldo80 says, "just argumentative for the sake of it." His inability to suffer contradiction leads him to make personal attacks, such as this rant against Professor John Beer [5], which is borderline libel. WP:BLP is obviously safe in Ottava's hands. He can also be vindictive. He had a difference of opinion with User:Fowler&fowler over some of his Featured Article Candidates then initiated a check-user investigation against Fowler on the basis of the flimsiest evidence. This incident took place less than two weeks ago. I'm afraid that Ottava might use his admin tools to further his own personal agenda (the "leverage" remark in his answers hardly inspires confidence). --Folantin (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Not only no but hell no Unpleasant temperament. Quick to judge. Willing to make bald accusations in defense of friends. Unable to disengage from disputes. Diffs available upon serious requests but I'm not interested in dredging up a bundle to satisfy idle curiosity. Protonk (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Do I have to point out the inherent humour in somebody going "hell no, unpleasant temperament"? :P. Ironholds (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

11. Reluctant weak oppose - Ottava, I am sorry, I like you. However, you need to tone it down a little. Please run again in the future. — R² 09:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Strong oppose - a solid contributor to mainspace, but as other users have observed, is argumentative, reluctant to admit mistakes, prone to bullying (frequently demanding the resignation of admins who challenge his views, for example), offensive violations of WP:NPA (such as questioning the "ethics" of his opponents), and finally, has a rubbery, self-serving take on policy in my experience. Basically, he just seems to love Wikidrama. I also find his stated reasons for wanting the tools not at all persuasive, and indeed, somewhat worrying (as in his comment about using the tools as "leverage" against other admins). Gatoclass (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose The comment about leverage has me seriously worried, especially in the context of the editor's argumentative style and tendency to encourage Wikidrama. I hadn't known about the mentorship, but that is also a concern. I too find his style unpleasant. Not at all suitable to be an administrator and as others have suggested, more useful to Wikipedia as an editor and maybe as a thorn. :-) Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Strong Oppose Good article writer, but we need to look at an admin's temperament in order to judge them. Come back here when you learn how to be nice to other people. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 11:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Does not assume good faith, and per Folantin above. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Strong Oppose I very rarely oppose, especially when as in this case the candidate is a good article writer. However Ottava's temperament as demonstrated by a long block record is not right for adminship. I'm prepared to disregard blocks from more than 12 months ago, even 12 months and 2 days ago, but that still leaves three two blocks in the last twelve months from three two different admins. Communication skills or style are also inadequate, as demonstrated by the candidates stated unwillingness to enter into dialogue with !voters in their own RFA. There's also a separate but equally serious issue, the candidates postings on wt:rfa have displayed a deeply inappropriate understanding of the role of an admin; the candidate is trying to move Wikipedia to having a small group of fulltime admins who disengage from the community and don't take part in its deliberations. I take the contrary view that as many civil, experienced and cluefull editors should be made admins as can be persuaded to pick up the mop, and in this way we can be a self administering community where the burden of administration is widespread and the administration does not disengage from the community because it is inextricably part of it. Having a good editor such as this candidate want the pedia run by admins who only do admin work saddens me, having an admin with this vision for Wikipedia would horrify me. ϢereSpielChequers 11:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Downgrading from Strong Oppose to Oppose as the candidate has started to respond to opposes, and because I'd miscalculated his blocks. However I'm still convinced that Ottava should not be an admin, both in his interests and the project's. ϢereSpielChequers 14:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Strongest possible oppose Never. — Aitias // discussion 12:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Oh look, the prodigal son returns. Going to come back and edit, or are you just following up your vote at my RfA with another stab for users you don't like? Ironholds (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    I wonder just how much editing Aitias is allowed to do before it triggers the reopening of the ArbCom case against him? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    [6]. Majorly talk 13:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

18. Strong Oppose One of the few times that I don't even have to take a glance at the user's contributions. OR is completely drama prone with a terrible attitude and disposition. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 13:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Sorry, no, needs to get along with and respect others better. And no, I don't mean he needs to submit to the civility police's every whim (they drive me nuts, too), but just that he neeeds to be able to work with others much better than he does now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose Ottava Rima is a very good editor, and certainly does his best to prevent WP from becoming dull. But his short fuse and habit of making the maximum drama out of any disagreement are unsuited to admin work. --Philcha (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose - Past experience with Ottava Rima at AN and AN/I leads me to feel that his temperament is incompatible with adminship (and being a drama magnet only makes it worse). — Kralizec! (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Strong Oppose Ottava does not have anywhere near the temperament required to be an admin. Per several others, quick to drama and anger, extremely condescending. My last interaction with him was when he was blanking a number of redirects; I restored them, telling him that blank pages served no purpose, only to be told that I was edit warring and vandalizing. I'm really hoping this turns out to be a joke. GlassCobra 14:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose. Nope, sorry. You do some truly superb work in mainspace, but ... Ottava, do you really want to be an admin? It can be an ugly, dirty job, and sometimes brings out the nasty side of even cool-tempered people. Would it really be the best application of your talents, which are considerable? Think on it. Antandrus (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Regretful, but Strong Oppose: Ottava is an excellent article contributor and is a nice guy when things are normal, everyone knows that. But he also has a really terrible attitude when engaged in an argument, and everyone knows that too. I don't want to and neither do I need to describe any of it since everyone is familiar with this. In my view, an admin needs to have a cool head at all times and I can't picture Ottava doing that after he becomes an admin. An admin should be capable of finding a way out of problems, not into them. It feels weird to be opposing someone who has made a lot of useful contributions to Wikipedia, but I think this is necessary anyway. Chamal :  Chat  14:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Oppose. Doesn't seem to have the right temperament to be an administrator. Mathsci (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose - has a tendency to draw things out much longer than necessary. –xeno (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose per bibliomaniac15. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 14:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose per the excessively contentious "discussion" we had at User talk:EVula/Jan-Mar 2009#Improper templating. Being unable to understand that comments like "I HAVE A TINY COCK" (as vandalism; obviously, if someone wants to talk about themselves, hey, to each their own...) are actually block worthy is a horrible position for an administrator to have. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Ottava expressed concern[7] that I misstated his position; I don't believe he was defending the vandalism (and didn't mean to imply that; my apologies if that's how it sounded). He did, however, state that "an admin shouldn't block based on actions on their own page," which is the crux of my opposition; if an administrator is being attacked by a vandal, he should respond with a block. Citing WP:COI in this instance is not constructive at all; we don't need another level of bureaucracy to deal with vandals, and we certainly don't need to tie the hands of our administrators any more than they already are. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    I'd just like to take the opportunity to reinforce my opposition to Ottava, given a recent talk page message from him. He's excessively antagonistic, and absolutely a poor choice temperament-wise for an administrator. While I don't think he'd abuse the tools per se, administrators are (incorrectly) seen by some as being of a higher level than the "regular" editors, and he's not the sort of person that should be on that imaginary pedestal. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Seen as being at a "higher level than the 'regular' editors"? Not by me they're not, and I'd hope not by many others either. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    Total agreement about that; sysops should be seen as just editors with a couple more abilities. That doesn't mean that it's always the case, though; perception can vary wildly, dependent upon a person's on-wiki experience (primarily for newbies, who I can easily see being bitten pretty hard by a sysopped Ottava). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

29. Oppose. Ottava is, and wants to be, a populist ("Down with tyrants! I speak for the little guy!"), and I agree with the supporters that populists can make good admins, but I agree with the opposition that Ottava isn't there yet. I think it's very hard to pull off being a populist; there are so many pitfalls to watch out for. You have to keep the people who want to bring down the system at arm's length; you have to constantly examine, not just your own motives, but how you're coming across, regardless of your motives; you have to bend over backwards to be friendly and engaging. It's hard. I'm disappointed by Q8; if Ottava saw himself in a process, I would happily work with him, but if the only choice on the table is "take me or leave me", there's not a lot I can do with that. I like Ottava, I think he has a net positive effect, but he'd get into trouble with a mop. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose due to this user's history of instigating battles with other users, which I have observed primarily at Wikipedia talk:DYK but that apparently (based on the above comments) has been displayed in other areas, too. It's OK to disagree and it's OK to express opinions forcefully, but Ottava overdoes it in both departments. --Orlady (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppose. I have the utmost respect for Ottava's mainspace contributions and his committment to making the encyclopedia a better place. I think he is an excellent editor, but I do not believe he would make an excellent administrator on this wikipedia. I've seen Ottava do wonderful work in encouraging resolutions to disputes, especially when they involve new editors. I've also seen Ottava escalate other disputes (in my opinion, unnecessarily). Sometimes he takes criticism of his and/or differences of opinion very well; sometimes he does not, and a relatively minor issue can get blown into a larger drama-fest that pulls in other editors. I think Ottava has come a long way in his general attitude in the last year, but I think he has a little way to go before I could support him as an administrator. Karanacs (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose - Seems to contribute well, but also creates levels of drama that outweigh his article-writing. Skinny87 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Oppose - I have not had any encounters with Ottava Rima so my viewpoint is unbiased and strictly from his contributions. My female intuition says he would be dangerous with administrative tools. From his conversatgions with others I would have to agree with those that say he is paranoid, crazy, uses little common sense and tact. His "block log" shows a tarnished reputation.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    — Christie the puppy lover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

34. Absolutely not - mostly per bibliomaniac15 and Hipocrite, as well as personal harassment from OR. //roux   17:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Do you think you could clarify what you mean by "harassment"? You are making a pretty serious allegation. Jake Wartenberg :  Chat  19:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Voila. //roux   20:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

35. Oppose. This clearly won't pass, but I hope OR will gather constructive criticism from it. Mine is that he doesn't seem to recognize when to withdraw from a conflict or how to do so gracefully. The recent kerfuffle with Fowler&fowler is a perfect example. I would expect an administrator to possess this quality. --Laser brain (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Oppose per answer to q7. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-01t17:48z
37. Biblio says it as well as I could, unfortunately. I feel really bad about opposing too, because I like Ottava a lot, but I just don't think adminship is for him. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Oppose Too many admins currently. Just kidding. But I do agree strongly with bibliomaniac15. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
39. Oppose I would like to Support, but issues with Ottava Rima's not assuming good faith holds me back. Sorry. America69 (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
40. No, no, no. Every time I've seen him, his attitude has been horrible. --NE2 20:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
41. Oppose Sorry, Ottava, but I just don't think you have the right mindset. Above, you commented that most administrators should stand down if attitude is an issue. If you think that is true, why would that mean we'd need one more? It's difficult to judge temperament in the time before people run for RfAs, and I do agree that is true that many ill-tempered admins make it through. However, if one is showing signs of this even prior to running, it's probably best to avoid giving them extra tools. hmwithτ 20:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
42. oppose OR has serious problems. He has demonstrated repeated failure to understand how the GFDL, Creative Commons licenses, and public domain work. Moreover, attempts to explain it to him failed. See this discussion. By itself, this lack of understanding of copyright would be a problem. However, this is part of a more general pattern by Ottava. He opines about topics he doesn't know much about, develops weird ideas about them and then refuses to listen when people who know more try to explain it to him. None of these are traits that are good in an admin. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
43. Strong oppose see my comments below. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)oppose has same initials as WP:OR which is prohibited here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    This is not funny, and cruel IMHO. How do you think this editor is feeling right now? Do you have any valid reasons? Graham Colm ^Talk 21:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    How OR feels, probably no worse than those whom s/he has slammed with no good reason. I've always believed that you shouldn't dish it if you can't take it. And now I'll add the additional reason of being pestered by you - moving to strong oppose. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    o_O Um, how about you explain why Graham asking you a perfectly legitimate question warrants giving Ottava a strong oppose? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    No problem. This is not a poll and what matters for determining consensus is the strength of the argument provided. Chamal ^talk 13:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    No problem because it seems where this is headed, but hotheads like the nominee tend to run in the company of other hotheads like those who pester all the opposes. You guys may well be happy with an admin who displays or condones such behavior, I - with lot of others - am not. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

44. Sorry, but I really don't think this would work out very well. --B (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
45. Oppose- this editor seems to me to have a volatile temperament and a bad case of the stubborns. Sorry, but the danger of Ottava Rima using the mop to irritate people and cause teh drahmaz is too great for me to support. Reyk _YO! 21:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
46. Oppose - I find Ottava well-intentioned and a good mainspace contributor, but inconsistent and unpredictable in his behaviour in project space. I would not honestly feel comfortable giving him admin tools; as I just don't know how they'd end up being used. ~ mazca ^t|c 22:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
47. Oppose: per my RFA criteria. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
48. Oppose per above. I'm sorry- a history of inconsistent and tempermental behaviour prevents me from supporting. PerfectProposal 23:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
49. Oppose OMG no. No, no, no, no. Horrid behavior on AN/ANI and elsewhere. Skinwalker (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
50. Oppose. As can be seen from this user's block log, he has been blocked many times in the past year for disruptive editing and edit warring. I am also concerned about the candidate's statement that he would use the tools as "leverage" when dealing with other users, as it seems to imply wheel warring, and about the fact that he generally seems to be a somewhat controversial figure within the community.--Unscented (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
51. Oppose - Blocked by everyone and their mother. Wouldn't like to block (except actual, good-standing users). Wouldn't like to delete (except actual, quality articles). Notably, I absolute detest this edit. Jd027 (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Banned...? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Duly noted. Jd027 (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

52. Oppose It's a simple concept really. Ottava opposes everyone else's RFA, so I'll oppose Ottava's RFA. Also per above.Tavix :  Chat  02:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Another simple concept: RfA can do without payback. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    I can honestly say that I don't weigh "payback" !votes at all when gauging consensus as a bureaucrat. While I highly doubt that it will make much difference in this particular RfA, I do think that these sort of things need to be crushed when they pop up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    I don't consider this a payback vote... a payback !vote is where somebody says, "they opposed me, so I'm opposing them/they supported me, so I'm supporting them." This one is using the fact that from Tavix's perspective, OR opposes everybody. If Tavix had Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tavix|run for admin]] and received an oppose from OR, I might agree that it is payback. But in this case, I don't.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Ottava's voting stats: 17 in support, 6 in neutral, and 27 in oppose. I can hardly see this as opposing every RfA. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    I'll retract that statement, I didn't think about my comment like that. Tavix :  Chat  01:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    What were you thinking of when you claimed that "Ottava opposes everyone else's RFA", and what are you thinking of now? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

53. Oppose I don't like the "leverage" comment, Adminship tools is cleaning up stuff and helping other editors and not for politics.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
54. Strong oppose. On IRC, the user cursed at me and told me to retire again, over a minor dispute he blew totally out of proportion. Wikipedia does not need that sort of behavior as an admin. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    I just couldn't stand this. The "minor dispute" was Hurricanehink proposing that three GA articles should be merged into a list and effectively deleted because Hink was in the middle of creating a "Featured Topic" and those three GAs put him below the percentage required for that Featured Topic. Instead of working on the pages, he wanted to take the easy way out to get a star. Yes, I chewed him out for it. Yes, it completely disgusted me that someone could game the Featured sections in such an outrageous manner. The fact that Hink came here and called it "minor" is insulting to me, to Juliancolton, to the Featured processes, and to Wikipedia as a whole. I am -glad- I yelled at him for his outrageous behavior. If that cost me Hinks and Dylan's vote, so be it. The dishonesty that those two showed was far too much to let go without comment. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    Yea, but if only you assumed good faith and talked me to me, rather than cursing at me and telling me to retire. I was not in the middle of that FT, by any means. It was mostly finished, and there were three more articles which needed some discussion, as the WPTC was unsure whether or not to have articles for storms that didn't affect land. Certainly it was a minor dispute, and you turned it into something much bigger than it actually was. That is not behavior expected from an admin. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    You could have the best intentions in the world, but the mere thought that you would think that any situation in which you remove three certified GAs and possibly benefit from the action (i.e. another star for your collection) is completely unethical. The fact that you still don't recognize that completely disgusts me. You think its minor. I think its major, because it calls into question -every- -single- -one- of your GAs and FAs. If you are willing to game the system for that, then you were probably willing to game the system then. That is utter corruption, so yes, it is better that you retire than to continue performing unethical actions in regards to GAs and Featured Topics. Just be glad I haven't drawn up an RfC on you or proposed a topic ban on you in regards to featured content. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

55. I stopped reading at "I would use the tools as leverage to discuss unblocks with other admin." That is everything that is wrong with admins already. Keegan^talk 03:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
56. oppose never really was a big fan of that April 1 thing. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)+1

    Ottava Rima has indicated that this is indeed a legitimate request. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

57. Oppose. This has nothing to do with the fact that he was the only person to Oppose my RfA. Though he may be a dedicated editor, I have real concerns about him possessing the tools. I share the fears of many of the above regarding your history. I don't think I have seen anyone with such an extensive block history and is still allowed to edit. Though he hasn't been blocked in months he still antagonizes, perhaps purposely, many others. I also lament that you refuse to address the concerns of those who oppose you. This indicates to me that you don't wish to make improvements. Valley2city^‽ 05:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    He doesn't refuse to address the opposition. So here's to that. Keegan^talk 06:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    I refer you to his answer to question 3: "A: I've probably stepped on most people's toes. I'm sure the opposes will come up with new and exciting things to look at, so, here's to them. Now, I will state that I will not respond to the opposes. I believe that the opposes have their right to express their views. So, enjoy." He shouldn't address everything but many people oppose because they have concerns. Of course we are all entitled to our opinion, but he should allay their fears if he has a constructive response to them and they are asking for it ("asking for it" In the literal sense, not the punitive sense"). Valley2city^‽ 13:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

58. Oppose I don't usually comment much, nor add my thoughts, but I oppose because I have been taken aback by Ottawa's attitude in a few posts I've read. I think it is not insurmountable that he could add actual value, but some demonstration of a more considered approach would be required.liambussell (talk) 14.27, 1 April 2009 (China) —Preceding undated comment added 06:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC).
59. Oppose, don't get me wrong, a good content contributor, but totally the wrong attitude for adminship. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC).
60. Oppose There is great value in an admin (or admin candidate) who isn't afraid to step on toes from time to time. There is no value in an admin (or admin candidate) who just runs into a room and just kicks people in the nuts for lulz. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Wow. Easily the funniest thing I have ever read on Wikipedia. Better than this and this combined. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    Hot damn, hippo crates lasted for 6 months! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

61. Oppose I hate opposing RfAs, but I would be very uncomfortable with Ottava Rima becoming an administrator. Ottava is a good editor in general, but the idea of him becoming an admin is unsettling at best.--Res2216firestar 16:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
62. Strong oppose From what I can tell, over the past month or so Ottava has been doing good constructive editing and not starting fights. But nevertheless, the frequency of problems Ottava has caused in the recent past, or fights Ottava has started, is too much to ignore; if I were the only one who had gotten into spats with Ottava I might not oppose, but I know tons of editors who have had similar problems. Also, in spite of Ottava's answer to Question 1, I don't really see any "need for the tools," considering that Ottava self-identifies as a "content" editor (and Ottava him/herself has opposed numerous other RfAs for this exact same reason). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Changed to strong oppose per Ottava's recent comment in the questions section, showing a lack of respect for editors who work on different things than he does (calling other editors "paper pushers"), and suggesting that this entire RfA was opened just to prove a point (about "how Wikipedia feels about those like me"). Ottava's attitude towards editors with different editing styles than he was what prompted my first big fight with him back in December, and it appears that attitude has not changed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

63. Strong Oppose per Ottava's disruptive behavior in the not too distant past. I sincerely believe that users are capable of reform, and I won't oppose solely based a user's block log, but a 3RR violation isn't the same as multiple blocks for disruption... beyond just that the general "don't give a crap" attitude I've noticed in his or her edits really bothers me. T.B.S., The last month or two has been particularly good and constructive, if I see more of this I will definitely consider supporting in the future. -Senseless!... says you, says me 17:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
64. Oppose. I hate to pile on here, but better safe than sorry. When I first met saw Ottava on IRC he seemed like a good guy. However, as I became more involved in watching different RfAs succeed and fail, Ottava's opposes seemed so pointless, with reasoning that didn't even make sense. I can pull out diffs if anybody feels the need. Sorry :(. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
65. Strongly oppose, terrible attitude. Everyking (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
66. Oppose Though reluctantly as the editor does much good work. But just the wrong temperament for an admin. Dean B (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
67. Oppose— what they said^ –Capricorn42^Talk 00:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
68. Oppose. No. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
69. Oppose. I don't see much of you, but usually when I do you come across to me as abrasive and quick to judge, as has been stated repeatedly above. I don't feel as though I can support you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
70. Oppose Has brought too much drama to DYK discussions. I wonder why this RFA has not been pulled, there's no chance it'll succeed. Royalbroil 03:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    Ottava has indicated that he wants to see how it turns out, despite the sheer number of opposes. --Neskaya ^kanetsv? 15:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

71. Oppose, per above Griffinofwales (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
72. Oppose per above and because of answer to Q2&3. - Fastily (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
73. Strong Oppose per answers to most of the questions. User appears to have little interest in being an admin. JPG-GR (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    Just to point out; the validity of comments like "Little interest", "no need for the tools" is generally agreed to be almost zero. Ironholds (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    And yet Ottava has made those same kinds of opposes at numerous other RfAs, which prompts the question why Ottava is running at all (in other words, if s/he has such high expectations for other candidates to "need tools", then why shouldn't Ottava himself demonstrate a need for them?). In any cases, in most of those situations I remember other editors defending people's rights to express the "no need" opinion even if the 'crats will discount it, so likewise JPG-GR here still has the right to express it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

74. Oppose. Having such an epic block log for disruption is enough for me to oppose, but it is also because of having watched OR in action. He has qualities, but we can't have administrators who seek conflicts, are quick to judge, who don't appear to be listening to the opposition's arguments, and who try to win discussions through attrition. Few editors have struck me as so unsuitable for adminship as OR.--Berig (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
75. Oppose - answers to questions 1-6 are enough for me to oppose for lack of appropriate temperament. I believe in OR's sincerity and ability; I don't agree that OR's approach is right for adminship of en.wikipedia.org.  Frank  |  talk  12:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
76. Oppose - Trust is the standard applied to candidates for the rather mundane office of WP Administrator. This editor cannot be trusted with the tools. X MarX the Spot (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
77. Oppose - Per this, and incivility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahadsadah (talk • contribs)
78. Oppose. Sorry, I think you are a great mainspace editor, and very valuable to Wikipedia; however, I do not think you have the temperament to be an sysop. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 15:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
79. Oppose. Too much drama. Too much time spent on the wrong end of WP:DRAMA. I won't say this editor will never make a good admin, but I don't think they're there yet. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
80. Stronger oppose than possible - I have to admit that I have sympathy for Hink – he's totally undeserving of the shit Ottava put him through, especially on IRC. Add that to Ottava's horrid incivility and block record, despicable judgment, drama-mongering, harassment, and promise to be horribly disruptive as an admin, and... wow. I don't care how good of an article contributor Ottava is, judging from what we block constructive editors for, I'm deeply alarmed that he hasn't been blocked for 8 months. Makes me wonder why Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ottava Rima or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ottava Rima are redlinks... --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 20:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    See above my response to Hink. This oppose is just retaliation for my getting in the way of Hink adding another easy Featured Topic at the expense of three Good Articles. The fact that those two pages are Red Linked only verifies that concerns like Dylan's can be summarized in no other manner but petty. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    Dylan, you're entitled to your opinion, but "no fucking way", especially in an edit summary, is uncalled for. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    My apologies. Is there anyway we could hide the edit summary, but not the edit? Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 20:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, one moment. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    I don't think it's necessary to hide the edit summary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    That's the response I got too. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    Not at all, neither deletion (removing the edit), nor oversight (hiding the summary) are justified in this case. Prodego ^talk 20:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    Ottava, harassing/trolling/assuming bad faith with me and Hink will get you nowhere. Congrats on making my oppose not only stronger, but irreversible as well. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 21:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

81. Oppose Prodego ^talk 20:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
82. Oppose I do not believe I have ever seen Ottava act or speak in a neutral manner. While this is an admirable or exceedingly irritating trait in both a person or an editor, it is entirely contrary to how an admin is supposed to perform. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
83. Oppose Comes off to often as hostile and confrontational, and only escalates a situation. Grsz¹¹ 00:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
84. Oppose From what I have seen Ottava is a good mainspace editor, but seems to be unable to handle criticism (even when it is justified and constructive) or admit faults; instead OR usually chooses to respond by assuming the mantle of victimhood and counter-attacking the critic/reviewer. For example, consider the lesson the editor has drawn from the opposition to the RFA, or their previous blocks. This is grevious shortcoming for any editor in a collaborative project, and a critical one for an admin. Abecedare (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
85. Oppose. The items on the block log is too long to be listed and summarized. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
86. Oppose per prior behavior, temperament, incivility, block log, absolutely no trust with the tools (regardless of other wikis). Need a year of problem-free editing before I would consider supporting. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
87. Oppose Sorry but being a admin you may have to make or do things that you may not like such as blocking users or deleting articles.Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 06:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

    Not accurate. Under no circumstances does an administrator never have to do something if they don't want to, for whatever reason. When they do things, they have to follow community standards, but they can choose to not do anything if they so desire. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 15:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

88. Oppose Sorry, but I simply can not trust you with the tools per issues such as incivility and behavior stated above. FunPika 17:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
89. Agree about 100 percent with Karanacs. --JayHenry (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

    And per RoyalBroil. The toxicity RB mentions is a large part of the reason I disengaged from DYK which was once my favorite part of the project.

90. Strong Oppose Incivility issues, prior blocks. WP:NOTYET. Willking1979 (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

    The above user has stated here that his oppose is based on a standard that he has not applied to any other and involves the fact that I did not blatantly agree with a statement on his user talk page: "Say Yes to Flagged Revisions". Ottava Rima (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    There are other users that have the banner. They too have the right to !vote either way in RfAs. My comment on my talk page was not intended as a soapbox. Even if FlaggedRevs were not invented, I still would have opposed this RfA. Willking1979 (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    Removed the descriptive. It doesn't matter. I am simply linking to your more elaborated statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    "I will state that I will not respond to the opposes." Just couldn't restrain yourself? Hipocrite (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    Ottava has been responding to the opposes left and right, just not on this page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

91. Oppose Clearly not administrator material, per a look at the block log and the flippant statements throughout this RFA. Steven Walling (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

    Hmmm...I count two flippant statements...the "joke support" comment, which was actually serious, and the answer to Q5, which was quite funny. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

    I didn't say it wasn't funny. I said it was flippant, which it was. Steven Walling (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

    What you said was that there were flippant statements throughout this RfA, whereas you now seem to be agreeing that at best you were exaggerating. Ah well. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

    Nitpicking my word choice doesn't change the fact someone with extremely tough RFA standards (to put it kindly) treating their own RFA like a big joke is a huge red flag (in addition to the block log a mile long). Steven Walling (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    It is not "nitpicking" to point out that what you said was untrue. It is nitpicking of you not to accept that it was at best wild exaggeration. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

92. Oppose --David Shankbone 03:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
93. Oppose Absolutely not. Tan | 39 06:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
94. Oppose, temperament and civility issues. "leverage"?! SideWays with mop, anyone? - Mailer Diablo 07:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
95. Oppose. Far too much drama and incivility in one person. — Σxplicit 07:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
96. Oppose. The level of combativeness I've seen from you at DYK makes me unable to trust you with the tools, I'm afraid. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
97. Weak Oppose Weak because of decent personal interactions, but the candidate's incivility at times raises concerns. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
98. Oppose - no thank you. Too many controversies that you seem happy to fan the fire of, rather than help douse. Achromatic (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
99. Oppose Civility is very important for an admin. Admins should reduce drama, not escalate it. Chillum 22:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
100. Oppose - Good writer, not so good at getting along with others. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
101. Oppose - per trolling on WT:DYK after his article was rejected. ~ Ameliorate! 10:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

     I feel strongly that User:Ottava Rima/DYK sure suggests that the above comment is far from the truth. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     Ottava frequently falls back on the "I have over 50 DYK" argument to claim that his activities on WT:DYK in the past were not disruptive. This is a logical fallacy; some arbitrary number of DYKs of his that did pass doesn't say anything about the way Ottava acted when one of them didn't. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     Sorry, but when you, Gato, et al, attack those like Casliber, Rlevse, and Raul over at DYK, there is only one side that is trolling, and it wasn't the side that I was on. Most of the people that agreed with you had extremely little experience there and caused significant problems. If it weren't for people like me, we would have plagiarism on the main page and all sorts of problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     I'm not talking about plagiarism problems; we all agree (as has been stated by other people in this RfA) that your anti-plagiarism work at DYK is valuable. Ameliorate! and I are referring to back in December when you made two disruptive proposals and attacked numerous DYK editors in attempt to have the DYK rules changed because the rules happened to exclude one of your articles. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     Rlevse was very clear back then that the proposals were necessary to form consensus. There was an idea going around that did not have a proper consensus discussion. I proposed that we blatantly count block quotes. That was decided as what the community did not want. Have I not followed that since the actual consensus discussion? I think it is obvious to everyone that I have followed the determined standard. If you look at the Template talk page you will see that I reviewed one hook and even made it blatant that the blockquote was not counted. This has also come up in other reviews since that consensus discussion. Consensus is how we create standards here. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

102. Oppose - I have been very torn, as Ottava Rima has stood up for me in a wonderful ways, and for that I am thankful. I genuinely like OR. I appreciate OR's contributions and marvel at OR's genuine generosity to others. But OR seems to have two personalities. I too was driven away from DYK by OR's nastiness, and from FAC because OR's responses. OR's recent attacks on Fowler&Fowler, going to the extent of filing a sockpuppet accusation [8] horrified me and make it impossible for me to support at this time. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

     I moved off topic comments to here. I don't like the fighting. I am invoking IAR in doing this. My filing of a CU request was based on a blatant use of a revolving IP, which was checked. As Yellow Monkey later revealed, the user was another person who "retired" and did not stay gone. I don't remember responding directly to Mattisse at FAC or DYK, but if they would like to provide links that is fine. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     Response You are misrepresenting. Yellow Monkey was not involved in the malicious Sockpuppet investigation you filed against Fowler&fowler . See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fowler&fowler/Archive, which was characterized by the closing admin as starting to look "like a fishing expedition". As far DYK, my few rather mild responses to your virulent posts there drew an RFC against me, so I was penalized by your behavior. Since then I have been fearful of ever posting a response to you. I would be fearful of being involved in DYK now if you were active there. Although I did post on FAC for The Lucy poems, your treatment of Fowler&fowler on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Lucy poems/archive1 (and the resulting sockpuppet accusations) made me fearful of attacks and accusations against me if I post there again. All in all, I am frightened of posting near you. I am sorry to say all this but your comments above and removal of remarks make it necessary to clarify the record. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     If needed, I can ask the four CU clerks and the three CU that I talked to at IRC to testify about their responses to me on the matter and the seriousness that they took 6 IPs constantly attacking me across multiple forums while simultaneously defending Fowler. The reason why the check was performed was for this very reason, regardless if the actual SPI report was not completed. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     • No need. The actual SPI was completed (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fowler&fowler/Archive) and speaks for itself. I do not believe that invoking nontransparent sources is healthy or good for Wikipedia. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     CUs can verify that a CU was checked, so the opinion of one -clerk- is meaningless in the case, especially with the support of multiple clerks and CUs. It was not reopened because it was seen as moot. Now, if you want to talk about transparency, where were you defending me against someone who logged out and used a rotating IP to constantly attack me across multiple pages while simultaneously defending Fowler? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

103. Oppose. RfA might be no big deal, but it's definitely not a joke and I really can't see someone telling it is and then being a responsible admin. This is April 6, not April 1. (Offtopic: BTW the interesting thing is that you're right now getting the same support percentage you were making through your own votes at other people's RfAs.) —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

     At the very top - "I decided that we could separate the more jokey stuff to that and keep this serious." The joke RfA is linked. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

104. Oppose per numerous reasons stated by others opposing. Temperament and civility are key factors. Timmeh! 21:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
105. Oppose While he is on the right track, I must say that he is not quite the kind of person that an admin is.  Marlith (Talk)  02:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     Oppose Too many admins already doing the cheap shot at any cost in any situation. What's needs is more admins who are willing to find solutions, not admins who are always willing to get in a negative word about a person. --KP Botany (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

106. Oppose Too much drahma at AN and AN/I lead me to question giving this editor the tools.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     Links? I am rarely at ANI or AN, nor do I have either at my watch list. This meme serves absolutely no basis. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     I guess we have different ideas of what rarely there means.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

     Being brought to ANI is quite different than constantly starting things at ANI. I have gone to AN or ANI very rarely. I do not watchlist the page, nor do I troll the comments and respond. Everyone knows that I hate ANI and that I think it does nothing but damages others. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

107. Apparently not sensible enough to distinguish criticism from hate. Friday (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     Links? Diffs? Are the two mutually exclusive? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. A total dramamongerer, and would probably be disasterous as an admin. But I have had numerous pleasant encounters, so no need to pile on. I think he knew how this would go anyway. Majorly talk 13:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Largely per Majorly. Seems rather too drama prone but I've only enjoyed pretty positive interactions in the past. I also note Deacon and Malleus in support, who make good points. Pedro :  Chat 
3. In view of the friendly comment above from the candidate I feel I should say something here. If we could give the right to view deleted articles separately, I would strongly support doing that, but I'm not that happy about the right to edit protected articles. As a slightly different view about the same sort of problems that others have mentioned, I see it mainly as being too stubborn in defending views and comments once they've been expressed, rather than the view and comments themselves. As for article writing, we could use a few dozen like him. I notice another editor has suggested cloning as well. DGG (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   The protected articles would be things like the DYK template (spelling errors, typos, problems with images, etc) or any corrections needed for an FA that is a TFA. Or do you mean in general? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

4. I would oppose if I thought this might pass, but I don't like piling on. Excellent article creator; much too antagonistic to be an admin. Looie496 (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Per most of the oppose section. But I have had some good interaction with Ottava. He has clue but uses it too well or too badly, I can't really tell.  NEDRAG  19:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Per mainly Biblio and also Majorly. NuclearWarfare :  Chat  20:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
7. I have to side with Majorly on "he knew how this would go". Ottava is clueful in many respects but every now and then the cluefulness disappears and transforms into some seemingly random erratic judgement. For instance, Ottava is notably tough in RfAs. He opposes a lot of candidates and although I disagreed in many cases, I've been surprised to see him support candidates that fail the very standards he has set elsewhere. As another example, I can't for the life of me understand how someone with usually sound judgement writes this response to a victim of real-life stalking. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   You mean "If I was a judge at your hearing for whatever you would want to press against him, sure, I would probably grant you it. However, Wikipedia is not a legal recourse." Which based on basically what Wikipedia already states? No Legal Threats is very clear on legal disputes also. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a battleground to settle legal disputes with another party. You can oppose me for feeling that way, but I wont budge. And I've only supported a few candidates. The only "controversial" candidates I supported, like Ironholds, didn't matter one way or another. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   The more interesting part of your reply was "you are lucky that there is enough sympathy about (or, just no really really gutsy admin about) that you aren't indeffed until it is settled as per the letter of NLT." For cryin' out loud... The guy was dealing with some wackjob editor who called his employer to get him fired. I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   I suggest you read WP:NLT, which makes it clear about the indeffing - "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." and "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." Ottava Rima (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

8. Neutral leaning towards borderline oppose This is a tough one. Looking at the user's contribs and actions on Wikiversity I believe Ottava is more than capable of being a productive and effective administrator, however concerns raised above about personality lead me to believe this may be a problem. While I do value people who are willing to tell it like it is rather than worrying about not offending anyone I could see potential problems with that behaviour. As wikipedia's traffic grows Administrator actions are ever more so in the public eye, and while we can't possibly expect everyone to be a PR expert bluntness doesn't help the situation any. I would like to see the user show the ability to show diplomacy where the situation requires it without giving up his honest opinions, as well as run again in RFA. —Nn123645 (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Strong Neutral. I would oppose due to OR's excessively confrontational attitude towards other editors not being usitable for a sysop. However, I was involved in an IRC dispute with him this morning, so I can't in good faith oppose the RFA. That said, OR brings some good things to the project. I just don't think giving him to tools so he can have "leverage" over other admins would be a good thing for Wikipedia. Firestorm ^Talk 19:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Seems completely sane and reasonable from the little interaction I have had and answers to the questions above, if there weren't concerns raised regarding temperament and civility I would move to support. I hope OR gets nominated again at a later date. I think that the points OR raises about potential 'abuse' or lack of accountability is valid and I hope that he works towards resolving the underlying issues even without the admin bit. Unomi (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

    Apparently, many of the opposes don't want me to work in that area, but they seem not to understand that I would be doing it with ops or without. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

11. Was told my opinion would be valued. So here it is... Has clue. (most of the time) Lacks deft touch. (most of the time) Knows where towel is (about 1/2 the time I think) ... high marks for meaning well, though. Ottava, you made a very favorable impression on SB Johnny (at Wikiversity, see above) which is not easy to do! He's good people and gave you some great advice... see what you think. Would love to support. Would prefer not to oppose, and pileon not needed at this time. Hence... neutral. ++Lar: t/c 04:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    At another site your position on BLPs is characterised as "my understanding is that Ottava wants to remove most, if not all, editing restrictions on BLP articles and deny any rights to article subjects, not that they have any to speak of now"... is that true? If so I may have to take back what I said about clue. :) As that's pretty much exactly backwards of the direction we need to move. ++Lar: t/c 20:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    Could you clarify what that site is? (I'm assuming it's WR, but hey, who knows.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, perhaps Lar would be kind enough to share his hidden wisdom and name the site - then we would be all a bit wiser. Please do not make vauge references - Is it Wikipedia Review Lar? Well? Pedro :  Chat  19:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    I am not really clear what the source of this animus is, Pedro, but it's really not helpful to badger me this way. Ottava knew what it was well enough. Next time I'll try to remember to be clearer. ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    I'm sorry if you think asking people not to be vague in a discussion is badgering. I'm also not clear as to why you think it is acceptable that as long as the candidate is aware of what you are talking about then the rest of the community can be nicely kept in the dark on a community project. Pedro :  Chat  20:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    I saw, Lar, and I was pissed. I was about to get Majorly to respond there, lol. If you look here, you will see four BLPs on my list. I have edited many others, but -these- were ones that I was directly involved with BLP issues to a major extent. In each case, I was directly in communications with the article subject, posted communications where I could in discussions, and worked with many people on both sides to come up with a fair compromise. The edits to Picard, where Moulton was first banned, are an example of where I strove to improve the page, expand it to be more fair to the professor's career, and tried to make every side happy with the wording while being true to sources. I have been in communication with senators, governors, professors, and other people who have had BLPs, and I have worked with them, advised them, and showed them how to use various places on Wikipedia when they end up creating accounts (see Irving Hexham, for an example). But yes, I will say it now - Somey is a frequent liar, and, with the amount of Wikipedia Review editors opposing me, it comes as no surprise that such things would be said and such tactics used. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    There certainly is a wide variance, isn't there? I think you did good work on the articles you named, but I'm still curious as to the reason Somey would say that... were there situations where you've commented where such a conclusion could be drawn? It doesn't make sense. ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    Somey has no problem slandering me. He is unabashed at it. Why else would he let such an obvious and open thread calling for opposes stand? Is it coincidence that two blatant SPA accounts appeared? That so many members of Wikipedia Review have appeared? Hipocrite is right up there at the very top. Surprised? I'm not. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    Reverting to form? I opposed you well before there was any post about your RFA on WR. But please, pull the other one. Hipocrite (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    And yet I've seen constant emails and IMs between WR people and even participated in them myself. I think it is charming that you are pretending that such couldn't happen. And here you are in that thread. Its not a coincidence. Simply put, you are a Wikipedia Review member who is nothing but an inflamatory wikianarchist that does nothing but bash good contributors here. Sure, your oppose actually makes me happy. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    Could you try to be civil? Hipocrite (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    I don't think it would be possible when I am speaking to a prominent member of a forum who has used posts to attack people, to promote the destruction of the encyclopedia, and has said some of the most hateful things I have ever seen. Here is just one example - "immy Wales is perhaps the least impressive part of Wikipedia. He's a leech, who shows up every so often to spout this or that piece of "wisdom," which is usually just him saying "do something right and it's done right." Who cares?" I don't know why you aren't banned, or why, with such hatred to this place, you are still around. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

12. Great attitude. I am with you as an editor. We enjoy greater 'priviliges' and this attitude suits an editor. Not an admin perhaps. prashanthns (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Wimpy neutral. Ottava is a great editor. He's far brighter and more productive than most admins. He could be an above-par superior sysop if he decides to dial down the drama. Majoreditor (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Normally, with the concerns listed, I would oppose such a nomination; but, while I haven't interacted a lot with Ottava Rima, I am familiar with him. As such, I will not oppose, based on what I do know about him, but I'm not able to support; I also don't think that Ottava Rima deserves to have 100 in opposition either. I would, however, like to acknowledge all the good work Ottava Rima has done, as I believe that he is a strong editor. Acalamari 23:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Neutral Great contribs, but the civility issues are concerning. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 ^review! 00:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Neutral The recent Fowler imbroglio and the editor's subsequent actions were disturbing enough that it was reassuring that he did not have the power to block. God no, was my initial reaction to this RfA. However, now that I've been following this interesting RfA over the last few days, and seeing a lot more of the editor, I am convinced that OR would not have used the tools improperly had he had them. I suspect a reasonable person exists behind all that bluster :-) Can't support so soon after the F&f thing but am leaning in that direction. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 01:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    I tend not to take kindly to people who attack Ceoil's writing, let alone says this like "you don't know how to write English" and similar attacks - "Would you like me to pick apart your "best FA" as well? You teach grammar to college students? In what language? English?" Note, that page he was attacking had over 30 copyeditors and passed through FA with over 30 supports. The vitriol was completely unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

17. Neutral leaning towards support. Good contribution to resolving an intractable argument at the Picard article, showing good clue about BLP. Some subsequent issues may to some extent involve problems of communication or being misunderstood, but suggest lapses of sensitivity in tense situations where care is needed. The RfA above is jokey, and no problem with not taking it too seriously, but it's unclear that there's any real need for the tools. A lot can be achieved by earning respect without needing to be an admin. . dave souza, talk 11:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.