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

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

Additional statements

The following statements were offered whilst this case was in the requests for arbitration stage,. They are provided here for ease of reference, and should not be changed. AGK 23:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ottava Rima

I am appealing my editing restriction via what Carcharoth has described. I am appealing on the grounds of inappropriate actions in the closing and determining of these. 13:09, 25 September 2009, User:Jehochman adds my name to the editing restriction list.

He cites this discussion in which he is involved. He does not cite the full discussion as seen here, which reveals that three people opposed it NuclearWarfare, Durova, and ChildofMidnight express direct statements that it was out of process and only two expressed direct support. There was no consensus to allow it.

After Jehochman started telling people that I was under restrictions, it was revealed that he put them up himself. This thread was started because of 1. lack of consensus on the matter and 2. he did not follow as what Carcharoth earlier states was part of the editing restriction: "could we have some discussion of whether the person logging the restriction here could be the person (hopefully an 'uninvolved' admin) that both assesses consensus at the community discussion, closes that discussion, and records the restriction at a user subpage (if needed) and on the user's talk page?". Not only was there no assessment of consensus, there wasn't even a true proposal.

I asked on the talk page for it to be closed. Ncmvocalist said it was not an appropriate forum, even though it was stated it was not supposed to be there and Jehochman even said "The list is a convenient index; nothing more. Any editor in good standing can fix what is written here if it is not correct." at Jehochman Talk 00:30, 17 August 2008 on that same page. Ncmvocalist knew this, but also knew that there was disputes at ANI and even made threats regarding it (". Again, would you like me to spell out what will happen if you continue to be disruptive by keeping this discussion here?" Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2009). I informed them that I asked Carcharoth to explain what he stated before at this thread. Before he could, an ANI discussion was opened.

RegentsPark closes the discussion as passing. He cites "22 supports, 8 opposes". He previous posted multiple times expressing opinions: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. It was also pointed out on his talk page by myself that the actual tally was not 22 to 8 (73%) but 18 to 14 (53%). This is a far different gap than what he claimed existed.

I am asking that this sanction be lifted as out of process and that the actions of the two admin in determining their sanctions be investigated in their 1. involvement with the issue as a whole and 2. inappropriate use of determining consensus in such restrictions.

• Response to John Vandenburg - As I have stated here, it is harassing to be under such constant scrutiny, attacks, and the rest. I am not someone who has had a lengthy ArbCom which has determined that I should be under such. This is purely one quick decision following a few days of constantly creating threads on me that were filled with invectives and attacks by the same people. Restrictions like this are emotionally damaging. If you want to get rid of someone, get rid of them. Don't keep them around and play games with them. I am a human being. I have flesh, I have blood, and I have feelings. These "restrictions" are exactly what people have been doing for a while - constantly warning me on this or that, items the vast majority of the community would not even think were close to incivility in order, to put pressure on me and have a negative impact. I have managed to create 70 DYK, 29 GA, and roughly 8 (it hasnt closed but is close) FAs in a three month period where I was constantly threatened with blocks or received blocks. My talk page is constantly filled with the same people making claims over what can only be trivial matters. I have watched my language carefully, and it is obvious that people would instantly block me if I said even the slightest thing that was obviously incivil or a blatant attack. If I made this section I would have been blocked for at least a week. I can't edit under these circumstances as I have emailed ArbCom for the past three months about. The pressure from the same group of people to bully me into submission is unbearable. Either free me from these people and allow me to actually put my time and thoughts into writing without having to worry about the same group trying to bully me in some new way, or get rid of me completely so I don't have to bother with any of it. Anything in between is impossible to work with because it is an endorsement of the same behavior that seeks to ignore arguments or matters and instead focus on me. Allow me to be as productive as my potential has proven I can be, or make it clear that I can't benefit this place and get rid of me. I have already stated here that if any Arbitrator feels that I do not belong here, please say so. I will go. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Questions for RegentsPark - 1. What do you think about the discrepancy between 22 to 8 as you state and the 18 to 14 as I have pointed out at your talk page? 2. Do you feel that you were able to adequately close the page while a. having put forth your view already and affected the debate and b. had a previous dispute with me just prior to this matter? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Response to Jbmurray - I don't think a full case is needed or normal for this. It would just go to motions on the matter where ArbCom can simply uphold the stuff as official, not uphold it, or impose whatever else. But if someone wants a full case then I'm sure they will do it too. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Question to ArbCom - is it a coincidence that Folantin, Moreschi, Dbachmann, and Akhilleus kept appearing in various debates and Moreschi accuses me of disruption there? I would welcome such examination because there are three admin that have participated in outright attacks, disruption, POV pushing, threats, tag teaming, and the rest. Moreschi and his friends have done this for a very long time and they will continue to do something until 1. ArbCom desysops all of them for abusing adminship and 2. Puts forth tough restrictions that result in blocks if they ever do anything that appears to be tag teaming in the future. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Response to Carcharoth - I don't cuss, but many responding to me do. I don't call people stupid, but many people responding to me too. I don't ask for the same people to show up to countless pages and have my "back", but many people responding to me do. I have supported those who have caused me harm before, and have defended people like Mattisse or Peter Damian who have never done a positive thing for me, yet many people who respond to me have never went against one of their friends. I do not use socks, yet there is a blatant history of those against me using socks. I don't follow people to multiple pages, keep making tendentious attacks on minor matters without willing to listen or compromise simply to say that they have had a "history" of such actions which, if someone bothered, they would see the history is artificial. This is a common tactic against me. I deal with actions here, and I only make statements regarding the propriety or impropriety of those actions. I have worked on DYK, GA, and FAs with over a dozen people who are -not- my friends and who have completely different views from me, yet the people against me only work with those who agree with them and try to snuff out any opposition. After being targeted by the same people, as you can see on this DRV from April 16, 2008 on Swift's printers many who are present here and present in most of these discussions, for over a year, constantly being harassed, bullied, intimidated, and blocked by those in their circle, I was -still- capable of producing about 10 FAs, saving two FAs directly, putting up over 50 GAs, and having now 210 DYK. I was still able to produce 61 DYK, 8 FAs, and 27 GAs in a three month period in which there was either a WQA, an ANI, or some other form of harassment against me with the intent to get rid of me. Why is that? Because I fight through the pain, the harassment, the emotional harm because I believe in this damn encyclopedia. If I acted like this I would have been banned. Yet that group of people just because they are Moreschi's friends and they have Risker on ArbCom think they own this place. That thread makes me sick, and yet they didn't even have anyone willing to warn them. When I complained about one of John Vandenburg's mentees edit warring against me when I tried to follow a WQA alert about a group of people accusing me of "hating" another person, I asked John to intervene because the individual was on direct ArbCom restriction not to do -any- edit warring. This was one of Moreschi's mentees. What was John's response? That since the guy once did something on Wiki Source for me I shouldn't pursue the matter. Is that how things are done around here? An Arbitrator I once considered a friend tells me that someone clearly breaking the rules and causing me emotional stress shouldn't have anything pursued against them because they once helped me? That absolutely sickens me. I don't stalk people across various topics. I don't bust into multiple WQA and edit war or attack. I don't follow them constantly to ANI and gang up. I don't tag team, bully, or any of this. I don't tell people that it is appropriate to ignore clearly disruptive and emotionally damage behavior because they once did something for another person. If the community wants to ban me, fine. But there is only one thing the community can do if it wants to make up for the pure shit I've had to go through since last April. I was constantly intimidated, constantly harassed, berated, abused, sent threatening emails and had some of the most horrible and blatant hate on Wiki without even one person warning the individual. The only way I was able to keep from being blocked from Nandesuka's block is because two members of that group had me edit war against Haiduc on various pages dealing with Pederasty. I did their bidding only because I was tired of the constant blocks and harassment, and it made me sick. I worked with him to get Nicolo Giraud to FA to make up for the hell I aided. I am tired of this all. Either fix the corruption and protect me, or get rid of me once and for all. You want to blame me for this, Carcharoth, fine. Blame me. Get rid of me. The problems will continue, as there are dozens of editors that suffered from these same people in the same way, and there always will be. I fought through all the bullshit and managed to put forth good work. I could have produced at least 4 times the amount I had if I didn't have to constantly fight against this. You have brought me to cussing on Wikipedia, which I am strongly against. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And I am sorry if the above is extremely hostile or combative. Your comments have extremely upset me and I can't even finish fixing "Ode on a Grecian Urn" which is at FAC because I don't want to be around here right now because of what you stated.

Statement by Jehochman

When I show leniency toward an editor, it often seems to bite me in the ass. In this case I gave Ottava a mild civility restriction instead of a block. If you take this case, please investigate the underlying dispute, Ottava's behavior and what to do about it. The community has been incapable of ending the drama, to date. Ottava claims to have been harassed and hounded. I believe these counter claims should be looked at to see if they might be mitigating factors. Bad behavior by one side does not excuse bad behavior by another party, but it should not be ignored. Before my action there were blocks followed by unilateral unblocks. I tried to fashion a sensible remedy for an obvious problem; I personally abhor the idea of blocking a constructive editor such as Ottava.

ANI is a poor venue for thoughtful discussion of serious matters. The community sanctions policy and process needs an overhaul. However, you cannot legislate these matters. Policy is for the community to decide. I've started a relevant discussion here should you wish to participate as individual editors. Jehochman ^Talk 09:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to remove Ottava's name from the list to avoid stigmatization if he observes site standards for one month. Thank you for the suggestion. If anybody has issues with Ottava's behavior, please notify me as a courtesy. If I am online I'd like to be consulted before any non-emergency block might be placed. It is my goal to help Ottava, not to set him up for failure. Jehochman ^Talk 02:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll get off the fence. I think this situation will improve if you give Ottava a bit of time and space. Immediate arbitration is not going to end well. He's had feedback and indicated some things to me privately that give hope that the matter could be resolved. If Ottava returns and problems resume, you can take up the matter. Meanwhile, I would implore all the disputants to stop applying pressure. There is no need. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ottava Rima is a redlink. A passel of ANI threads is not real dispute resolution. It's wikiwarfare.Jehochman ^Talk 02:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

It looks like RegentsPark misassessed the preferences. At least five editors either expressed preference for the alternate or specifically opposed the initial version, while only three expressed preference for the initial version. Without venturing an opinion about whether either proposal achieved enough majority to constitute consensus, it appears quite clear that if either sanction did it was not the initial version.

Listing within a collapsed section for clarity (and feedback in case I've miscounted or misread).

Preferences of discussion participants between the two proposed versions

Prefer alternate as first choice, initial version as second choice Skater SarekOfVulcan Hans Adler 4wajzkd02 Procedurally oppose initial version, no opinion on alternate Myself Prefer initial version as first choice, alternate as second choice John Jeni Wikidemon Support either, with misgivings about unilateral nature of initial version JohnWBarber The initial version was not an "existing sanction" and carries no validity unless the community endorses it Rjanag Unclear Philcha states that "an uninvolved admin should allowed to rule on an [sic] sanction" and that review should be done by an uninvolved administrator, but it is not intirely clear whether he intends that as specific criticism of this situation or an articulation of general principle.

It would be problematic to refer the matter back to the community. An aspect of the recent underlying dispute is of a sensitive nature.

There are at least two issues worthy of ArbCom attention: review of a closure which appears flawed and which the community is unlikely to reassess effectively, and review of whether a lone administrator may impose sanctions by personal initiative outside the context of arbitration enforcement. One or more named parties has expressed additional grievances which they may wish to raise within arbitration.

Some of the discussion at ANI sank to a level that does not reflect well on any of the participants. So respectfully requesting that (whatever each of us thinks or says in private) the onsite comments here please express a basic courtesy. Durova³⁵⁵ 06:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding SarekofVulcan's followup:

The comparison in this section examines only the individuals who expressed a preference between the two proposals. Other editors also supported and opposed without preference between the two versions. Durova³⁵⁵ 15:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

To John Vandenberg:

One problem with that solution is that it implicitly validates an arguably invalid sanction, another is that neither proposed sanction is likely to succeed. Yes, we should all be civil. Look at the ANI thread and see what took place there:

• "Would all of you kindly shut the fuck up, please?... " (not posted by Ottava)
• "Start an RfC, or get off the pot" with the edit summary "or shit, or whatever" Further commentary: "I find it absolutely ridiculous that Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Ottava Rima remains a redlink while there are apparently so many people willing to bitch about him ad infinitum. WTF is the issue?" (posted by a steward)
• "Yes Ottava, and 'all of you' that that 'shut the fuck up' was directed at included you too." (not posted by Ottava)

The only one of those individuals who received feedback that perhaps that wording wasn't the best manner of expression was the steward, by me, at his user talk page.[5] And no, this is not an effort to exonerate Ottava. But it isn't viable to wait a month and then send an appeal while this simmers. It's been boiling over to admin pages about twice a week. Whatever else Ottava Rima does--and he isn't perfect--he doesn't sink to vulgarity. The situation is difficult already; it becomes even harder this way.

Ottava Rima crossed a bright line when he broadcast questions which could impact another Wikipedian's employability. There are ways of raising concerns about a fellow editor's conduct on sensitive matters, and I really don't approve of Ottava's course of action there. Now that it's been broadcast and said, it comes up again--not necessarily by Ottava. An arbitration case could manage that with adequate ground rules and clerking; the community can't contain that problem.

The best outcome would keep Ottava Rima free to contribute outstanding content and give him a measure of dignity--which the above vulgarities lack; he's a human being--while truncating the associated problems. Neither of the proposed solutions is likely to solve that because--and we've all seen this play out--the people who are at loggerheads don't want endless brinksmanship; they want to be free of the conflict and return to other priorities. The community debates would likely refocus to whether this snipe or that one crosses the line into blockable behavior. My graduate school training is in writing; Ottava's is in literature: neither of us need vulgar clichés to be cutting. There are different ways to interpret the civility policy. Consensus doesn't exist in this realm.

Neither of the proposed sanctions was developed as a result of discussion. One administrator tried to impose the first unilaterally, another presented the alternative with what appears to be good intentions and haste. I have an idea for an alternative proposal, which the heated discussions really haven't allowed an opportunity to pose or consider. Am quite worried that if the community handles this the result will be conduct RfC, "failed" civility parole, and siteban. Arbitration may be the only viable alternative. Durova³⁵⁵ 19:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ncmvocalist

• I am not a party to this case for a reason; I have no interest in it beyond that which I would show for any on-wiki dispute that needs to be resolved. That said, I want to clarify some of the facts I dispute in others versions (such as the filing party's).
• My responses to Ottava Rima (Ottava) at Wikipedia_talk:Editing_restrictions#Inappropriate_restriction were: [6] [7] [8]. It is not my problem that Ottava repeatedly lets himself believe that threats exist where there are none - had he answered yes to my question, I would have explained to him where this was inevitably going (aka, here).
• As Ottava failed to take it to ANI, I opened that which was closed by RegentsPark - notably, the only comment I made at that discussion was the opening one. There was neither any issues in the way I framed it or filed it, nor was there any doubts that I was merely exhausting this step; a formality to complete so that Ottava can, as he preferred, let ArbCom hear an appeal.

Prior interactions and relevant ANIs

There were some lines of semi-involvement now, or involvement in the past, that I'd like to note for the record. Prior to this, particularly recently, I'd noted Ottava should change his approach. See for example [9], [10]. He appears to have evaded the concern [11]. I also vaguely recall making some comments to Ottava at the Ryulong case regarding his approach in the case itself which arbs can look at. In August 08, I personally encountered similar conduct problems with Ottava, and regrettably, it came to the point that I needed to request a block - an administrator blocked him for 8 days; it was not overturned on any grounds. There may have also been a mentorship thing; not sure what became of that. See also this ANI. Before and after that, a number of other relevant discussions have taken place - see, for example, the ones I linked to at the ANI: Nov '09 ANI, Oct '09 ANI, Sept '09 ANI May '08 ANI, May '09 ANI, etc.

• I am sceptical that an RfC/U will achieve much due to the number of claims (including those of uncivil conduct, administrator impropriety, etc. etc.) and the grudges/battlelines that keep being drawn at any community discussion relating to Ottava. Unfortunately, in this regard, it may be practically impossible for the community to conduct a focused discussion for very long at all on this. That said, I don't think this case can be limited to how each sanction discussion was conducted (and ended), without looking at the underlying conduct concerns, both express and implied, that may have led to the sanction discussions in the first place. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, I strongly contend the assertion made by one of the responding parties that ANI is a poor venue for thoughtful discussion of serious matters - the way I framed the most recent discussion, and the way it went for the most part, is ample evidence that ANI is fine when discussions are framed properly. Certain users refusal or uncertainty on how to conduct ANI discussions and impose sanctions does not make that system the problem. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Fowler&fowler

Those who subscribe to the conceit that Ottava Rima contributes reliable and accurate content, are asking, yet again, that a special dispensation be granted for his follies. It is important for ArbCom to assert the primacy of the Wikipedia enterprise and of its rules. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon

I am impressed by Wikidemon's cogently argued statement. ArbCom would be wise to pay close heed to it. In my view, Ottava Rima has often employed the same stratagems in countering objections to his content contributions as he has in countering those to his incivility. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark

I think it is fairly clear from the discussion that there is community consensus on some sort of civility restriction on Ottava rima even beyond the numbers counted in the !votes. A requirement that an editor be civil and assume good faith on the part of other editors is generally a good idea and enforcing that is not a bad idea if the editor has been uncivil in the past and, of the various suggestions thrown around in the discussion, this one is the least onerous and has the advantage of being a restriction that is already in place. In this case, I think I've correctly called consensus and suggest that if the editor continues to focus on content and attempts to be civil in his dealings with others, there should be nothing to worry about.

I have had very few interactions with Ottava rima himself, the most recent one being on the Byron talk page. While I was surprised at the tone and tenor of his statements in that discussion, at no point did I feel that it was necessary to take the matter further or consider a block or ban (Ottava expressed the desire to take it further but, since he did not, I assume he did not consider the matter particularly serious either). I do feel that rudeness is detrimental to the goals of a collaborative volunteer project and that is the only way in which I consider myself to be involved in this issue. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist has asked me to explain why I chose the original sanction over the alternative plan. The 'support difference' between the two was slight and the original plan was already in place and a great deal simpler. The alternative plan has clear support as well, but it is both more complicated as well as more punitive. Since there was clear consensus that there be some restrictions placed on Ottava, and since the original plan both has 'expressed support' and is as well the absolute minimum restriction that can be placed on an editor, I concluded that it has consensus support. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to questions from Ottava rima I counted straight down, ignoring comments (unless they clearly stated a preference) in the Original thread section whereas your numbers include interpretations (for example, I would not have included the three editors who seem to be throwing up their hands at 'the whole mess' in the oppose section) across the entire thread. My views were expressed in purely general terms (I have nothing for or against you and, somewhat like you, feel that the community should either ban you or just agree to put up with you) so I see nothing wrong in my closing the thread. By 'previous dispute' I assume you refer to the Byron article naming dispute. I'm not sure why a purely content dispute, particularly a one-off thing that neither of us considered serious enough to take further, should preclude an editor from closing a thread of this sort. We would never get anything done if that were the case.

Regardless of the counting of 'votes', I would (if I were you and I do realize that I'm not you!) focus on the general opinion that your tone is less than civil. Civility is largely a social construct - what passes for polite conversation amongst a group of stevedores would scarcely pass muster at a gathering of the lords and ladies of the court - so one has to take cues on what is polite from other members of a particular society. You can see what sort of message you're getting. Durova reminds us (above) that there is a human being behind the virtual Ottava, and I urge you to bear in mind that the people you communicate with are also human, with the same need for a 'measure of dignity' that you have. (My apologies for this digression, which is doubtless both uncalled for as well as unwelcome, but I can assure you that I mean well.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Elen of the Roads

Debate is the lifeblood of Wikipedia. I believe a significant component of Ottava Rima's incivility is that he rapidly goes from academic disagreement (which while it can be extremely heated is at least based on an examination of the evidence and/or interpretation that the other party is putting forward) to accusations of bad faith, disruption, conspiracy, socking etc, which it is hard to interpret in any light other than a personal attack, and which quickly either stifles debate or turns it into wikidramah. A very good, recent, and uncontroversial example (a discussion as to whether to rename the article about the poet Byron to Lord Byron)is here. I would recommend anyone interested to read it. The section is quite short.

Suggestions about the move were initially met by Ottava with sound academic and policy based responses [12][13][14] and so on for about half a dozen responses. Other parties joined the discussion, and one eventually placed a formal support for the proposal at hand [15]. At this point, Ottava Rima's behaviour changed. His next post [16] makes the first accusation of bad faith "If you are going to play these games, don't do it with someone who is an expert." (By way of background, both have carried out a search of the academic database JSTOR, and are reporting different results - as it later transpired, from the use of somewhat different search parameters)

When the editor addressed protests[17] that this is "Bit, unnecessary, and rather uncalled for,"the next response from Ottava is a full on attack [18] "I straightforwardly proved that you were spreading blatant falsehoods." The person to whom this is addressed posts a lengthy reasoning [19] and Ottava's response again contains accusations of bad faith editing [20] "stop the nonsense. Your comments are filled with 100% incorrect information."

The discussion continues in a civil manner, with views on both sides. Another editor who disagrees with Ottava is met with [21] "Your persistence is the very definition of tenditious and incivil" (this is the editor's second post in the debate), followed by "Your arguments are so incredibly wrong that you must know that they have no basis and is further proof of your intentional disruption"

The first editor makes another point, and suggests "I know you've done good work on poetry articles here on wikipedia, but, I think, your familiarity with the subject is causing you to lose perspective here." This is met with [22] "your pursuit is against the MoS, against standards, and against logic. You already crossed WP:CIVIL and NPA attacks above. Does an AN or ANI need to be brought about because of your indecent actions?"

A third editor who has dared to disagree with Ottava suggests "our naming conventions are not predicated on what libraries call people". This unremarkable observation is greeted by Ottava with [23] "You should honestly be blocked for that because that can be nothing but trolling."

A different editor (not any of the three already referred to) asks Ottava to tone it down. [24]. Ottava's response so exemplifies the issue that it is worth reading in full. Bear in mind that up to this point this has been an academic debate, with possible sources advanced, and no-one has done any more than (a) disagree academically and (b) asked a couple of times that Ottava turn it down a bit, as he's not helping the debate.

I'm going too far? You are the one starting this whole nonsense. You have no legitimate argument and you pushed absurdities. The two above should honestly have known better then to encourage your disruption. You have contributed nothing but disruption. Once it was mentioned that the LoC classifies him as George Gordon Byron, you should have apologized for starting this. The other two should never have bothered. That is enough to warrant a week long block against all three of you because you have proven that you are not here to contribute. It seems like a block would be the only way to protect the encyclopedia by those who don't actually care what the real classifications are or how people actually use them.

I submit that it is this cycle that it most disruptive to the encyclopaedia, and this which needs to be addressed. Debate is the lifeblood of Wikipedia. Ottava has been reminded to AGF with those who debate with him, and it is not unreasonable to reinforce this with administrative action should he start accusing academic opponents of lying, disruption, trolling, socking; or make threats to report them should they continue to debate a point.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

@ Fowler & Fowler

Agree with SandyGeorgia - if you can't think of anything helpful to say, then it is preferable to say nothing. Going to Ottava's talkpage to post what can really only be described as a personal attack is not making anything any better, and there is no reason to do it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

I urge the Committee to accept this case without delay, so that the disruption evident on WP:ANI and on various editors talkpages may be diminished and the concerns raised - and the responses - can be reviewed without interference or influence. I would further request that an injunction be placed upon Ottava Rima upon acceptance of this Request that he limits himself to interacting with editors only on these pages, that he may only bring up one incident or instance with an editor once, that he evidences any rebuttal, that he comments only upon actions and not purported motives, mindsets, "cabals" or otherwise upon the characters of other parties. I would further request the injunction to disallow Ottava from commenting at the Admin noticeboards or on the talkpages of other participants of this case, or otherwise contacting them. In short, an injunction requiring Ottava to respond only on these pages, and only specifically in response to any one point - once.
I would comment that it was my intention to block Ottava Rima indefinitely for disruption, and Bad faith assumptions against those whose viewpoints he does not agree with, having concluded that he was continuing the behaviour recently expressed at ANI and on various editors talkpages. If this case is not accepted, I shall continue to review Ottava Rima's conduct in the light of JHochman's restrictions and my understanding of policy and will block (indefinitely, agreeing only that it should be lifted in the light of credible undertakings by Ottava to moderate his conduct) should I consider he is abusing the goodwill and collegiate atmosphere of the community. As I have some history of disagreement with Ottava I am certain he will declare me an "involved party" and thus incapable of acting in regard with him, and as I do not think it relevant there will likely be even more disruption resulting from my potential action. Under the circumstances, it would be best if this matter was accepted sooner rather than later. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment in response to those by Carcharoth

I would like to note that I did not make my comments in order to exert extraordinary pressure in having a case accepted; I was intending to be honest in how I perceived the situation to be, that I had decided upon a block (and I use indefinite as a nuanced tariff, because it can be lifted as soon as its purpose is served) to diminish the continuing disruption, and that I stayed my actions because there was an RfAR initiated by OR which served the purpose better - if accepted. I also commented that if the Request was refused I would continue to review OR's - subsequent (for I try to be a fair beast) - interactions with editors in dispute resolution and sanction if I deemed necessary, with an honest realisation that the block itself might prove to be catalyst for an ArbCom Request for the reason given above. I would not care to give the impression that I will block OR should this request be declined for any reason other than further violation of project guideline or restrictions; I would much prefer that a defining of expected behaviour and practices on the part of all parties (including myself if considered appropriate) be made so OR can write articles alongside other editors and disruption contained. My comments were in no way intended as holding a gun to anyones head. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

Elen has a good summary of the current issues above. When the Lord Byron discussion was taken to WP:WQA, I attempted to engage Ottava there, indicating that he might be personalizing the debate too much. When he complained I was defending inappropriate remarks, I listed 16 comments of his, including "You've heard of a library before, right?", "You have no legitimate argument and you pushed absurdities", and "Do you even do anything around here worth while". His response was that "Those comments are not incivil and it would take a complete rewrite of WP:CIVIL and a complete bastardization of common English to make a claim to the contrary." At that point, I blocked him for a week, since I believed that he was unable to work within Wikipedia civility norms at that point, and cited that diff. Ottava's initial unblock request was declined by Chillum, but a second one caused Deacon of Pndapetzim to reduce it to time served with a note that "Abrasiveness was mild".

Durova's summary above focuses on those who expressed differences between the preferences - for convenience, here's a summary of the whole discussion.

List as I sees it

Support alternate as first, current as second Ncmvocalist Skater SarekOfVulcan Hans Adler 4wajzkd02 Support current as first, alternate as second John Jeni Wikidemon Oppose both Baseball Bugs Jennavecia Master of Puppets IMatthew Black Kite S Marshall ChildOfMidnight Support either Folantin Akhilleus Excirial Moreschi TenOfAllTrades Antandrus J SSilvers Will Beback JohnWBarber ChrisO jbmurray Until It Sleeps Tarc Comments Count Iblis (proposed clarifying to "uninvolved admin") Durova (opposed first, iffy on alternate pending Ottava's response) Malleus Fatuorum (both suggestions are silly) Bwilkins (there's an issue, but took no position on restrictions) RegentsPark (what kind of encyclopedia are we building?) SandyGeorgia (community must deal with problems) Philcha (noted Bugs' and Lara's comments) Rjanag (no current sanction in force, but this discussion could lead to one)

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Sandstein

However, RegentsPark determined here that there was now indeed consensus for the original sanctions, per the new discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Just added that link to WP:RESTRICT, for reference purposes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment in view of Ottava's GBCW

I would urge that the committee take a long hard look at his assertions. If problems are truly running as deep as he asserts, it's incumbent upon us to fix them, and an Arb case involving all concerned is the best way to fix them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Excirial

First and foremost i would like to split this issue between Ottava as an article writer, and ottava as a debater. Seeing article writer Ottava i cannot do anything else but admire his/her determination for improving the content on Wikipedia. It is this kind of determination that improves the new and average class article's we have to featured status. As i have said time after time, and now yet again, this part of Ottava does warrant nothing but the highest praise, regardless of mans stance on the other side of the ottavian coin.

However, debater Ottava seems to be an entirely different story. Debater Ottava will persistently maintain his/her stance throughout a debate apparently without listening to any arguments other editors make. Moreover seemingly every argument disagreeing with him/her is immediately turned down as a personal attack - down to threats with reports ranging from ANI to arbcom.

To highlight this i would like to focus on two cases, though unfortunately many more exist. The first is his\her response sequence to RsX very early during the debate [25]. After Ottava asked her first question RxS responded saying "What a rediculous question". Is this helpful? Not really, but immediately stating "but your statement is uncivil" is not helpful either. i argued before that simply asking "Why do you deem it ridiculous?" would have requested an explanation from RxS, while at the same time being less aggressive. Instead the next two responses in this thread by Ottava are onliners that are a warning and a threat with an ANI report respectively.

This happens often. I compiled a Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive574#Ottava_Rima_user_conduct list of these issues during the earlier ANI debate to demonstrate the incredible ease at which Ottava uses the terms "Personal Attack" "Warnings" and "Reports" early or immediately into a discussion, resulting in a negative tone. The response to this was ottava claiming that i made a personal attack against him/her and that i should remove my accusations unless i provided diffs - of which 15 were added. While inquiring after this in the second ANI threat Ottava claimed "At no time did those diffs show any incivil comment or attacks of any sort. This was explained to you and you kept going on. You have yet to provide anything". The only one disagreeing with me on those diffs was Ottava, with two other editors supporting my conclusions. Similary "Just kept going and going" is equally false, as i made just 1 comment in that entire threat - the initial one. In other words it would appear that Ottava denies any form of criticism on the sole basis of not agreeing with it himself / herself.

Personally i would conclude that this entire situation will prove only negative in the long run. Potentially losing an editor with Ottava's qualities as a writer is a grievous loss, but at the same time we cannot have an editor more or less driving away other editors as happened to chillum, judging on the ANI thread claims, some more editors. For me the only issue that lies at the core of virtually everything said against Ottava's is the aggressiveness and ease with which (s)he makes threats to other editors while denying any form of liability herself - actually even stating that any evidence prevented violates civility guidelines. Just leaving out the words "Warning" "You violate WP:NPA" and "(X) report) early into a discussion could change things for the better.

Finally, i deem the current community sanction as little more then a WP:CIVIL guideline rehash; Its function seems to be little more then a globally recorded UW-NPA warning, which should prove to be little to no hindrance with positive conduct. I can see no community disagreement as 20 voted support and 7 voted against. Ottava's counting of 14 oppose is essentially flawed. For example HalfShadow is counted as an oppose for stating "Would all of you kindly shut the fuck up, please?" - yet this comment was related due to the excessive amount of space the RFA discussion was taking. Protonk and SMC are counted similarly. Tarc is counted as an oppose, yet he clearly voted Support either. Finally i would like to note that 5 of the 7 oppose votes i counted stated that "It should be dealt with trough civility guidelines, rather then a separate rule" - Thus not being an oppose a sanction, but rather opposing the means. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Unannounced statement by Mitchazenia

Well, this was a thing I kind of have seen coming. The restrictions that have been placed (or supposedly to be placed) are mostly a good thing for the future sense of the encyclopedia, as I do not see a community site ban as a good thing for the community. Its like sending a manic depressant to Rahway State Prison. Anyway, I would believe ArbCom would be a good place to take this, but if the decision is to return it to the community, I would be willing to go ahead and do (if it happens), be the appointed mentor for Ottava Rima. I am not usually comfortable talking to ArbCom in this matter, but if it means keeping a valued contributor to the site, I am willing to go for it, whatever restraints there may be. Anyway, just my statement, but having a lot of previous interactions, I should leave my input.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sjakkalle

About a month ago, I blocked Ottava Rima due to pestering User:Bishonen with a meritless user conduct AFD (the straw which broke the camel's back was recreating the RFC after it was deleted). The block was overturned in a matter of hours since the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Ottava Rima Bishonen and Risker ended with no consensus (roughly 50% support for and against the block). The problems of pestering, and dragging out a dispute have not ended, the latest one being the campaign against User:Chillum, dragged out on Jimbo Wales' talkpage.

There has been far too much of this behavior. If Ottava Rima is not under a valid civility restriction, then I would urge the ArbCom to at least impose one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SandyGeorgia

My thoughts on this case are recorded here. I would like to see consistency in ArbCom deliberations and proposed solutions, considering there are other similar and even more difficult cases "brewing" through lower levels of dispute resolution. With respect to Ottava, I will point out that, in addition to his very high level of FA contributions, he has been the only editor-- on several occasions-- to identify important points in a FAC; at times his tenacious character can be quite beneficial, and I note that previous ArbCom decisions have allowed "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith" to continue in a case where another editor makes good contributions at a level lower than Ottava's. Like Ottava, that editor sometimes identified key issues in a FAC and frequently appeared at ANI; unlike Ottava, that editor sockpuppeted twice, has never written an FA or a GA, fails to AGF, and targets other editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Amended. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Since it looks like this case may be accepted, as part of reviewing the "standards and procedures for imposing community sanctions" and that "the community handle(s) this sort of thing poorly", I hope ArbCom will consider what can be done about the culture at AN/I, to make it more productive. Why is drama fed and escalated by some of the very editors to whom we trust the tools, when simple, polite answers can stop it? If admins are enforcing "civility", shouldn't they also be following it? Why is Ottava able to carry on in a friendly manner with other top content producers, even when they disagree? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Fowler & fowler

Re: "Those who subscribe to the conceit that Ottava Rima contributes reliable and accurate content, are asking, yet again, that a special dispensation be granted for his follies", that door was opened by ArbCom itself. Did you object to a "special dispensation" in that case? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Fowler provides, today, an example of the gratuitous unnecessary provocation and personal attacks that Ottava Rima deals with, interrupting a conversation several editors were trying to have with Ottava, to convince him to take some time off to think over the pending arb case. Fowler says that, although he doesn't "frequent this page", "someone emailed" him about the conversation and that he has "no appetite for Mr. Rima's endless grandiosity". When I inquired if his comments were necessary, he replied with, "Please don't blame me for Ottava Rima's indelicacies. Here is someone who can barely write English at the high-school level ..." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Update

Proposed changes to AN, AN/I and RFC/U are being discussed and implemented; this may help break some of the logjams in the dispute resolution process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Request

Will the arbs please try to recognize that the kinds of comments that Carcharoth makes on cases tend to make him appear impartial, which is very upsetting to people enduring an Arb case? They come here, expecting a full and fair hearing of all evidence before conclusions are drawn and what sounds like warnings are issued. There seems to be misunderstanding of what "arbitration" is about; please, Carcharoth, learn to make more impartial statements here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Folantin

Having recently become aware of some of the mistaken assumptions surrounding Ottava's real-life identity, and how those mistaken assumptions may have contributed to the hounding of Ottava, I don't find your use of the word "paranoid" accurate. I won't repeat those mistaken assumptions here, as they aren't worthy of further exposure. I find the language in your latest post unnecessarily inflammatory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Wikidemon

I concur with some-- not all-- of Wikdemon's latest post. My feedback in this case is based upon at least four similar cases, some still brewing through lower levels of the dispute resolution pipeline, and the need for consistency in deliberation and decisions regarding editors who make good contributions. ArbCom rendered an ineffective decision in a similar case that will come back to bite them in the butt in at least three other potential cases. I submit that there is one simple difference between the decision rendered in a past case, and the other three cases I'm aware of: the Wikipedia pillar of

Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.

If ArbCom allows editors who consistently fail to AGF and engage in pointy targeting of other editors and processes, even if at only a low-level of irritation that chases off many other good FA writers and reviewers, how will ArbCom decide these other cases, where the editors do truly act in good faith? You, ArbCom, have opened a door that, to my knowledge, was never opened before; now you must decide how to live with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Folantin

Compare and contrast: Ottava Rima's philosophy of editing (formerly his mentorship guidelines) versus his actual behaviour on Wikipedia.

Extracts from the "list of guidelines that I [i.e. Ottava] have committed myself towards":

• On conflict: "In order to avoid WP:CIVIL problems and to work on WP:Consensus, I shall seek to avoid conflict whenever possible. Instead of judging others, I should focus on issues [...] I should seek to be a peacemaker, and not an instigator. I should keep my mouth shut and open up my ears more often. - Ottava Rima"
• On consensus: "In order to avoid unnecessary conflicts and fights, I will explain my position shortly and not argue with others if they disagree. If they ask questions, I shall respond politely and not judge the questioner. I should seek to be inclusion and not exclusive, and consensus involves everyone and not a majority that overruns a minority. - Ottava Rima"
• On discussion: "In order to stay neutral and refrain from committing personal attacks, I shall speak politely, not judge other people's words harshly, assume good faith, and believe that everyone can and wants to contribute to a discussion. I shall try to keep an open ear and an open mind, and realize that my perspective is only my own, and that I should be willing to listen to others. - Ottava Rima"
• On talk page discussion: "In order to avoid WP:CIVIL issues, I will no longer refer to any rule violation and will not refer to any of the guidelines in a manner that calls into question another user's actions. I shall instead seek to discuss issues in a non-hostile manner and desire compromise without putting others on the defensive. - Ottava Rima"

Now Ottava seems to be complaining that he might be forced to follow his own editing philosophy.

Update

Well, it looks as though Ottava has "left" Wikipedia, at least until tomorrow ("I am gone. I don't know when I will be back, but it wont be tonight"). Once he's milked the sympathy vote on his talk page and shows his face again I'm perfectly prepared to examine his paranoid fantasies opportunistic smears if necessary, although I'm not sure I've really grasped them [26]. I find the allegation the fuss over the Persian Empire page has something to do with Geogre's desysopping (an event I was barely aware of) quite bizarre. I mean, I've been editing Iranian history articles since before Ottava appeared on Wikipedia so maybe when I revised the Iranian content on the "18th century" page it had something to do with that (I had no idea it was even on Ottava's watchlist; had I known, I would almost certainly have avoided it). But according to Ottava Rima, after Geogre's "desysopping I [i.e. Ottava] went from being someone they [the cabal] would leave alone and occassionally drop a small bit of support to protect in political fights back to the pariah I was. Shortly after: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=18th_century&offset=20090822111219&action=history ". So he's implying some sort of connection there. Or maybe he's just covering up his own stalking of me...--Folantin (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what Sandy is talking about and she has declined to explain herself further so I'll just let my "inflammatory" defence of myself stand. --Folantin (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Recommendation by Sandstein

Recommendation withdrawn per SarekOfVulcan's clarification

I recommend that the Commitee decline to hear this appeal against the civility restriction imposed by Jehochman for the two following reasons: The restriction is not binding on Ottava Rima. Administrators, unlike the Arbitration Committee or the community as a whole, have no authority to unilaterally impose binding sanctions on editors. A proposal by me to give them such authority is not currently supported by community consensus. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Sanction indicates that the "restriction" was imposed unilaterally and did not subsequently obtain community consensus. It is therefore an empty statement against which no appeal is needed. But, being void, it should be removed from Wikipedia:Editing restrictions so as to prevent confusion, preferably by an arbitrator or clerk. The restriction is entirely redundant to existing policy. Because it does not restrict Ottava Rima any more than the existing conduct policies do, the Committee does not even need to accept the case in order to determine that the "restriction" is indeed void. The "restriction" merely states that Rima may be blocked if he is uncivil or otherwise disruptive. But administrators are in any case authorized to block editors to stop them from disrupting Wikipedia. Therefore, even if it were binding, the "restriction" would not actually restrict Rima any more than all editors are already restricted by existing policy. Should any block occur based on the "restriction", that block would need be construed as, and would be equally valid as, a block for the violation of the applicable conduct policy.  Sandstein  16:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarek, for the link to the second discussion. So this seems to be a validly imposed, if a bit pointless (per John Vandenberg below) community restriction. Because it remains redundant to existing policy, it's probably not worth an ArbCom case to discuss on the merits.  Sandstein  17:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Rationalist

I stumbled across Ottava after he removed [27] a pronoun I had placed [28] on an article. (I didn't realise at the time it had been a featured article). I thought the tone of his comments rather abrupt and somewhat too forceful, but on reflection he was quite right to revert some of my edits, e.g. here. [29]. I then had a look at some of the work he has done and it is quite impressive.

I popped round today to say hello and then stumbled across all this. I can't pretend to have followed every detail, but it would be a great shame to lose Ottawa. I strongly agree with Sandy Georgia's comments above. We should not confuse forceful and abrupt and strident criticism with disruption. That's all from me. The Rationalist (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor The Four Deuces

I came across Ottava rima in an ANI where editors wished to insert very poorly sourced information about Oscar Wilde. RegentsPark mentioned a dispute where editors wanted to call Byron "Lord Byron". In both cases Ottava rima was correct, not a POV-pusher. It is unfortunate at Wikipedia that good editors can be frustrated by a group of editors who have a fringe POV. All of these issues should be dealt with through normal content dispute resolution. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jbmurray

Mostly per John Vandenberg and per Folantin. These editing restrictions seem no big deal. They merely enjoin Ottava to follow the code of conduct urged on all editors, and which he himself declares as his goal. The only wrinkle is that Ottava is to have his name on this list for an indefinite period of time which, as he points out, is a form of stigmatization. Why not prescribe a timeframe (one month, six months, I don't mind), after which, if all goes well, the restrictions can silently lapse with little drama or fuss. If there were a place to !vote for that solution, I would happily do so. Given that one of the problems that affects Ottava is the fuss and palaver that surrounds him, I hardly think an Arbcom case helps.

Statement by uninvolved editor The Magnificent Clean-keeper

In response to The Four Deuces": Nobody, absolutely nobody said he is a bad editor. Disagreements at article's talk pages are normal and a daily occurrence. His article editing is not the issue here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this case is now likely to be accepted, I concur with user:Chillum's first statement[30].The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk)

• IMO; I see some classic behavior: Ones one feels to be on the "loosing" end of a dispute s/he is trying to tilt it towards an other issue; (Which is NOT the issue here; Maybe a side issue that could (and should be) looked up and brought up separately but not here "as a main point for distraction".) Let's focus on Ottava's behavior which for me started at Jimpo's page (and I really do not care much or at all about his past interference with other editors). If he [Ottava] chooses to stay away so be it. That shouldn't prevent us from discussing his behavior in regards to other editors and neither should it prevent ArbCom to make up their mind and rule. If the editor in question decides to stay away and not defend himself, too bad (for him) but at the end, this is his decision to make.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

statement by Moreschi

For the love of God, please accept. We need to have Ottava's claims of admin meatpuppetry, mass tag-teaming and tool abuse exposed for the nonsense they are. Plus, a proper delving into his disruption at Persian Empire, Orlando Furioso and elsewhere would definitely be helpful as a microcosm of how he operates. Moreschi (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yada yada yada. Apparently I and many others need to desysopped and prevented, on pain of block, from ever meatpuppeting again! Oh dear!

Come on, how does anyone take this nonsense to be vaguely rational? Moreschi (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Chillum

Please accept this case and investigate all claims of impropriety that Ottava has made, I believe an evidence based investigation will benefit the community. Either these concerns are founded and need scrutiny or the claims are without basis in which case that needs to be exposed. Chillum 21:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Will Beback

This case would be a good opportunity to clarify several issues, including how the civility policies apply to productive editors. That keeps coming up in community discussions of civility blocks. Another issue is non-personal attacks. Is it a violation to say "you're an idiot" but permissible to say "you guys are idiots"? (That same issue extends to topics where there are complaints about tag team - some consider references to a "team", implying coordinated POV pushing, as a personal attack.) Finally, there is the question of deciding when a community ban has been enacted.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SB_Johnny

While I wish it was possible to step back a bit and have an RfC before things are brought to the committee level, it's pretty clear that both Ottava and those who are displeased with Ottava share a desire to have a definitive answer to certain questions. With that in mind, I think it would be a good idea for the committee to take this one up... eventually it will have to, and taking it on sooner rather than later will certainly spare the community a modicum or two of ill will that would inevitably come about by waiting until later. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Heimstern

If this is accepted, and I rather think it should be, another topic that would be good to visit is accusing others of meatpuppetry. Agreeing with another user frequently does not make the first user the second's meatpuppet, and constant accusations to the contrary are far more disruptive than a few swears, yet we continue to block people for profanity while letting unsubstantiated allegations rain down. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Wikidemon

I urge the committee to be very cautious about taking this case and, if it does, to avoid usurping the community's power to enforce standards of civility without offering something more effective in return, and to avoid Arbcomm's becoming the unwitting tool of an all-too-familiar tactic some sophisticated but contentious editors use to avoid scrutiny: when under pressure, create so much noise and unpleasantness through administrative process that none think it worth their while to deal with them. The issue underlying all the facts is simple. Taking at face value the evidence offered by all, Ottava Rima, a productive content editor, has offended community norms of civil collaboration with other editors by repeatedly insulting and haranguing those he/she disagrees with, to the point that many editors are annoyed and upset. In response OR says they are a pack that is ganging up, and various supporters claim that demands for courtesy are a form of repression or censorship, or double standards. The community, in the form of an administrator's conclusion following a couple AN/I threads, took that all into consideration and laid down a decision, that OR must be more courteous or else they may be blocked temporarily to avoid disruption. Must an editor say "please", "thank you", and "excuse me", or is that a repressive demand for conformity? Has one particular editor crossed the line, and if so what should be done with them? These are community decisions to make, not something to legislate by committee. The administrative process is sluggish and indecisive enough as it is, and is easily derailed as in this case by editors who cry censorship, conspiracy, and accuse the accusers, and like-minded critics who question the ethics of any administrator who dares intervene. If anything we need a system that is less self-reflective and cautious, and more decisive and quick. If every editor whose behavior so upsets people they are asked to stop were to make an Arbcom case against the enforcing admin, we could never enforce civility demands, and admins would be even more reluctant than they are now to do anything.

I say this as one uninvolved (as far as I know) in the latest flap, although I faintly remember being the target of some scorn at some point over a civility request. I am unfamiliar with OR's content edits. I'm aware of this only when disputes in article and talk space spill over into the meta-pages, and from a distance it looks like a bar brawl spilling onto the streets outside. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Update - how quickly I forget! The WP:WQA report here I filed in August illustrates most of the problems Antandrus mentions below. Ottava had disrupted an AfD he himself started outside his field of claimed expertise, wasting many other editors' goodwill and patience in the process. I tried to be resolute as I could to see whether Ottava would acknowledge in any way that he had done anything wrong (hence my firm tone). He was utterly incorrigible, refused to acknowlege that others were upset with him, lashed out and made retaliatory threats and counter-accusations, made improbable claims about having friends in high places, and played games with verb tenses and sentence structure to argue on syntactic grounds that he was not being uncivil. Of note, User:Malleus Fatuorum, a supporter with like-minded views on civility and a similar history of civility clashes, showed up to the WQA to defend him and attack his accusers. The community expressed a hopelessness to do anything about this short of an Arbcom case. So there you have it. It's down to this: will we block or otherwise restrict ostensibly helpful content editors who simply refuse after all warning and notice to be civil? Or do we instead give productive content editors and skilled wikigamers de-facto protected status to violate civility policies because there is no will to take action? I would urge the former, and hope that with a short enough leash and enough civility zaps they will learn by conditioning that their Wikipedia experience works better and their content goals are more readily achieved if they don't insult and threaten other editors. The latter approach sets a bad example: if you permit incivility it snowballs as others learn they can get away with it. The incremental harm by poisoning Wikipedia for dozens or even hundreds of less entrenched editors likely outweighs even the most productive single editor's contributions. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare

I broadly agree with Chilum when he said, "Please accept this case and investigate all claims of impropriety that Ottava has made, I believe an evidence based investigation will benefit the community. Either these concerns are founded and need scrutiny or the claims are without basis in which case that needs to be exposed." If the Committee decides to accept the case, I would encourage them to resolve it via case and not by a series of motions. There is evidence that I would like to introduce that wouldn't be appropriate at this time but would be more suited for a /Evidence page, and I would imagine that the same would be the case for others as well. NW (Talk) 20:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Georgewilliamherbert

I think I've said before that I am concerned about factionalization on Wikipedia. Last week, had anyone asked me "So, do you think there's a pattern of people taunting 'the wrong crowd' on ANI?" I would have answered "No". This week, I would answer "Maybe", and that is worrying to me. I am concerned both that a set of people have aligned as a current opposition party on ANI and are not assuming good faith about admins anymore, and that those people are being provoked or taunted in inappropriate ways.

We are in many crucial ways measured by how well we treat the people we disagree with. There has been a tendency for people aligned in opposition to feel persecuted when there was not necessarily much more than a normal reaction to their own actions. But we've had abusive admins, abusive non-admin ANI regulars, etc. When opposition parties and in-crowd regulars treat each other with disdain, when we no longer see admins and regulars AGFing and treating even exceptionally provocative users with respect, then we're losing.

This is neither a blanket indictment of an 'in crowd' nor a statement of support for the cabal-out-to-get-us theories. However - I am concerned that it's gone beyond a couple of incidents into a pattern. It's very difficult to handle patterns like that at the normal administrator or ANI consensus levels. Arbcom should rightly take this up, and consider both if the provocative opposition have been too provocative, and whether they have been subjected to more hostile responses than are reasonable of late. The answers to both questions may well be yes, which will satisfy nobody, but at least will set the stage for corrective actions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Antandrus

Arbitrators, please take this case to look at the behavior of Ottava Rima. We also need to look at the bigger issue of just how we deal with extremely disruptive editors who happen to be good content contributors. Exactly how much extra slack do they get? How should we codify this?

If I had my wish, and super powers, I would give Ottava an "aha!" moment, in which he realizes that he treats other people abominably, and thunderstruck, determines to change his ways, treating them instead with decency, civility, and dignity, as required by Wikipedia policy. A little like Harrison Ford in Regarding Henry, only without the traumatic incident that precedes that hero's epiphany. I am yet to see a single instance where Ottava Rima even recognizes that he is doing anything wrong, and it is precisely this which makes this editor so difficult. If he cannot or will not recognize that he is doing anything wrong, and the community cannot or will not stop his behavior, then the only choice we have is arbitration. Somehow we have to make this stop, because it just keeps getting worse.

With all respect to the fine editors at FAC and WikiCup, I do not think you have any idea what it is like to be on the receiving end of Ottava's abuse, in the other parts of Wikipedia where he is active, and where the vast majority of Wikipedians work. Those who collide with him often wonder what has hit them. It happens again and again. Have a look at this thread in which Ottava bullies, threatens, and generally abuses Alan16 for – incredibly – disagreeing over the placement of an apostrophe. Is it Keats' or Keats's? That's correct: Ottava went to war over an apostrophe. Here he bullies Maunus, now retired, for disagreeing with him. Here he bullies Itsmejudith. Here he bullies Scott MacDonald. Here he bullies Rspeer, using his peculiar interpretation of NPA. In each case he jumps to ad hominems, accusations of inappropriateness and disruption, accusations of trolling, threats of desysopping, and so forth. There are dozens of incidents like this. I have to assume good faith here and presume Ottava's backers just haven't read these threads, and are simply unaware of how utterly abusive Ottava is to editors not in the Featured Stuff, Good Stuff, and DYK areas. I'm involved in this whole business only because I tried several times to intervene and get Ottava's disruptive dramatics to stop, and for my trouble now Ottava considers me part of some conspiracy.

When not editing content, Ottava Rima is the single most disruptive, time-wasting, drama-creating, wikilawyering unsanctioned editor I have encountered in almost six years editing. Please accept this case to look closely at his conduct. There is no way to measure how much of the time of otherwise-productive Wikipedians he siphons off into his dramas. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Log of clerk actions

Any actions undertaken by a committee clerk in his or her official capacity may be logged here, for the purposes of reference. Clerks will remove discussions which are unhelpful (especially those that are not relevant to the case scope) and will sanction editors whose conduct is disruptive. AGK 00:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Collapsed or deleted discussions

1. Evidence talk page, #Basta was collapsed by AGK

• Editors cautioned

• Editors banned from case