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

• While I agree with Risker about the primary remedy before any restrictions, I am concerned at holding off on discussing restrictions on the basis of raw nerves. It would be one thing if it was a problem that emerged recently - it is quite another when it has been a sustained problem over a very extended period of time, where blocks were attempted. ArbCom would need to let the community comment on any restriction proposals so that reservations are not similarly sustained, and the best format for doing so may very well be case workshopping than later down the track at a noticeboard or separate AN discussion. In other words, I think the users who have reacted most during this case are not going to react particularly differently because of a temporary absence due to the duration for which it has gone on for, unresolved. Of course, it would not be an issue if the ban was indefinite, but subject to review/appeal after the "short period". Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No doubt you are correct, Ncmvocalist, that others will wish to participate in the discussion. I have now posted a proposed remedy that I believe will address many, if not most, of your concerns. Realistically, the terms for return would require some input from Ottava Rima, who appears to have left the project at this point. The proposal specifically identifies that Ottava Rima cannot return to editing until after restrictions have been discussed and approved. In fairness, I am also hesitant to tie the hands of next year's iteration of the Arbitration Committee with a remedy that may not, in the fullness of time, turn out to be in everyone's best interests, nor do I want to have the close of this case unnecessarily delayed to hammer out full return-to-editing conditions when there is a reasonable chance that the subject of such remedies may never return. Risker (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you - your proposal addresses many of my concerns very nicely. The reason I expressed the concerns now was in the event that his input continued to conflict with the community's reservations to the point that there is no resolution when the ban elapsed. Still, I agree that his input is nevertheless critical to making it work, and your proposal addresses this, as well as the other points that you also raised (which are all very valid). I very much appreciate the amount of thought and consideration you've put into this proposal, as well as the other arbs consideration of, and response to it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with NW - can't see a point in a ban, restrictions in wikispace would have made more sense, along with giving admins free rein to impose blocks or talk page bans where necessary. Gatoclass (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Risker has already addressed that issue above. As s/he said, "I do believe that Ottava Rima needs a solid absence from Wikipedia for a period of time to reset his behavioural pattern." You are welcome to describe your plan for rehabilitation in the finest detail upon Ottava Rima's return to Wikipedia a year from now. As such your post begins to look like a typical eleventh hour request for reprieve. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Risker was involved in the events of the case and should have been recused. Her statements do not matter here, as there is no way to claim she was objective. Moreschi deleted out of process an RfC against her asking her to resign for her aiding of long term sock puppetry abuse. That led to one of his friends blocking me. That is a major part of the case and as such there is no way to ethically say her opinion matters. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hardly think one needs a year to "reset a behavioural pattern". Three months would surely have sufficed for that. Also, it seems to me it would have made far more sense to try the less draconian solution first. Going straight from no restrictions whatever to a twelve month ban is a little too arbitrary for my taste. Gatoclass (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding FoF 4 and its assertion he effectively asserts that unless a point is evidenced as being a major theme, of a major work, by a major expert, it could be considered "fringe". This is the sort of content assessment that ArbCom ought not to attempt. What Ottava Rima has been saying is that it would not be appropriate for Wikipedia's article to call Oscar Wilde a pederast on the basis of two sentences by a single author who did not have a scholarly background in Wilde and who provided no citation for the assertion of pederasty. If Ottava Rima is right in his facts about that, then his application of

Well put. I entirely agree with Durova on this one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing my support for Durova's post as well. NW (Talk) 19:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with Durova's summary. The source that Ottava disputed was by John Maynard, an expert in Victorian literature and Victorian sexuality. Wilde is a Victorian author, and of some importance in the study of Victorian sexuality--so to claim that Maynard has no scholarly background in Wilde is inaccurate. The essay in question comes from A Companion to Victorian Poetry, published by

reliable source, as discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_44#Source_in_Oscar_Wilde confirmed. The problem here is that Ottava argued Maynard's essay was not a reliable source--that it was "not scholarly or academic", "fringe", not legitimate, etc. This is essentially the same problem we saw in the dispute over Ludovico Ariosto and Orlando Furioso

--Ottava will invent arbitrary criteria to rule out academic sources that he doesn't like. This is a matter that ArbCom can, and should, comment upon.

Incidently, the source was not used to label Wilde as a pederast. It was used to support the text "Though Wilde's sexual orientation has variously been considered bisexual and homosexual, Wilde himself felt he belonged to a culture of male love inspired by the Greek paederastic tradition." This is a close echo of Maynard: [6]. It's hardly a controversial thing to say that Wilde's thinking about sexuality was influenced by ancient Greek models--it's right there in the "love that dare not speak its name" speech. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Akhilleus. (I note that OR withdrew the claim in his evidence that I was Akhilleus' meatpuppet or he mine.) This has nothing to do with OR's sense of morality as Durova has chosen to represent it. The problem is with OR dismissing academics like John Maynard, Barbara Reynolds and John Beer. It is contrary to WP policy and highly disruptive, besides being a BLP violation when he refers to some of them as "hacks". Mathsci (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can ignore dear Oscar entirely. Ottava made exactly the same claim about a source in the Ludovico Ariosto case described in my evidence section. He took that to Fringe and RS as well - and this in an attempt to discredit the academic standing of the woman who had produced the leading translation. He does this regularly, I don't think there can be any argument about it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us aren't experts on Wilde or Ariosto. It isn't customary for arbitrators to attempt content findings of fact because they aren't subject experts; better to avoid the slippery slope because it would end in pressures to declare the proper balance of

WP:UNDUE in this type of arbitration case. In every instance I've observed, editors who really were in serious violation of content policies were also in violation of conduct policies. The conduct issues alone are enough to act upon. Let's keep the lid sealed upon that can of worms. Durova³⁷⁹ 23:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Ottava Rima used the word "hack" to describe John Beer, FBA, Emeritus Professor of English Literature at the University of Cambridge, and Barbara Reynolds, who was awarded prizes for her translation of Orlando Furioso for Penguin Books. What do such statements have to do with content? Are they not simply concerned with behaviour and BLP violations? No special expertise is required to discuss these issues. Mathsci (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then encourage the Arbitration Committee to deal with such matters as conduct issues. Propose a BLP finding if you wish, but let's not make the mistake of bundling such a thing with a content declaration which is outside the Committee's mandate. Durova³⁷⁹ 04:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tendentious editing, if you like. I agree that the wording of FoF #4 isn't ideal--aside from the objections already raised, it combines violations of several distinct policies into one FoF. --Akhilleus (talk

)

Arbitrators seem to have been reading the comments here and suggesting modifications to the PD. I agree that the finding needs to be rewritten in a much tighter way and should stick to behaviour. OR often seems to have have been advocating certain points of view, such as rejecting good sources, with often "spurious justification". The point of view or spurious justification are not what have to be addressed by ArbCom, but rather the behaviour he uses when trying to persuade (or even bully) editors who do not necessarily agree with him. This applies equally well to

Persian Empire, Orlando Furioso or Oscar Wilde. In those circumstances he should not resort to personal attacks on these other editors or on reputable academic authors (eg calling John Beer, a world authority on Romantic poetry, a "hack"). What is important is that he must discuss editing in a reasonable and civil way with other editors and be open to the possibility that on occasion he might be wrong or that his proposals might not have achieved the necessary consensus. Mathsci (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Agreed, the issue is not that there is academic debate over the weight to be given to various sources. The issue is the bullying manner in which the debate is conducted, and this includes making frivolous referrals to FRINGE and RS - with the emphasis being on the frivolous - in an effort to put his opponents off/browbeat them into submission.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The classic illustration of this behaviour is on Talk:Persian Empire. On 22 August, Ottava rejected the use of the most up-to-date edition of the Encylopaedia Britannica as a guideline for the meaning of the term Persian Empire ("Britannica is not a reliable source. It is a tertiary source. We use secondary sources.")[7]. On 1 September, however, Ottava started using the 1911 Britannica as a source for a point he was making on the same subject [8]. --

Folantin (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Finding of Fact #3, Nature of Dispute, indicates that the case was filed because Ottava Rima wished to appeal a sanction he believed had been unfairly placed on him by Jehochman. However, there is no Finding of Fact or Remedy to indicate whether or not Jehochman's action was appropriate. Could the Committee please deal with that issue? NW (Talk) 21:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A number of Jehochman's comments and actions have been disputed as problematic recently by me in particular (though other users have had other issues and ArbCom are aware of it). This was one of them, but in the interests of the project, and to reduce the scope of conflict, I'd tried to make the issue moot by the community discussion I started on the matter so that sight of the primary focus is not lost. With respect to the appeal of the sanction itself, ArbCom's remedies are quite clear. As for whether Jehochman's approach to doing so was appropriate, it may be more useful to examine in a separate case (particularly in light of the recent request that he had filed prior/during ArbCom elections) and this case may be referred to when addressing that point separately. As Jehochman came to an "understanding" with Ottava, little evidence was raised on that point here, and as I mooted the concern through the community discussion. I was tempted to raise the other evidence myself on a few occasions during workshop/PD but I held off presenting any to keep the scope of this case clearly limited to the primary focus or issue here - Ottava's conduct, which needed a lot of thought on its own without added complications. If I'm incorrect and ArbCom would like to address the part about Jehochman here too, despite the time it may take, then I request they make a comment to the contrary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case is named Ottava Rima restrictions. If the Committee does not intend to address the direct events that led up to the case, I would think that it should be retitled. NW (Talk) 16:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Ottava Rima is being placed under restrictions much stronger than Jehochman's (such as being banned), I'd think the question is answered. rspεεr (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the Committee should at least address the issue of whether or not Jehochman's actions were appropriate. NW (Talk) 21:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think not in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NuclearWarfare is correct that we took this case, essentially, to address two issues: first, whether the restrictions imposed on Ottava Rima were validly imposed, and second, whether Ottava Rima's conduct warranted action on our part. Obviously, the second issue has been answered with a strong affirmative (although the regret I express about the outcome in my vote on remedy 1 is very real). This renders moot the question whether the lesser restriction previously imposed should remain in effect. It does not necessarily render moot the question of whether there were any violations of fair procedure, or whether there was misconduct by any administrator or other editor in the discussion and process that led to the restrictions. In other words, our conclusion that Ottava Rima should be be banned at this time means it is no longer necessary for us to evaluate the procedural issues in order to decide this case, but we still would have the ability to do so if we found the discussion and decision procedure problematic. By writing the decision as he has, drafting arbitrator Wizardman has presumably concluded that he saw no problems with the decision process, or at least, no problems of sufficient gravity to warrant an arbitration finding. Having reviewed the discussion myself, I agree that there were no problems with the civility restriction that was imposed on Ottava Rima that would call for an arbitration finding, especially in light of the current circumstances. I am supported in this view by the fact that the bulk of the proposals offered on the Workshop addressed Ottava Rima's conduct directly rather than any issues with the prior civility discussions (although several of the principles suggested in Tznkai's workshop section were sound). If any arbitrator believes that additional issues should be addressed in the decision, he or she is course at liberty to offer proposals and they will be voted on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is my individual opinion that this is beyond our scope to address. I have proposed a remedy that touches on this issue and provides a more detailed rationale. Vassyana (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prodego told me to ask this publicly:

Why is it that the mentorship plan that Rlevse crafted around November 15th, with two confirmed as willing mentors (Casliber and Peter Symonds) was completely ignored by the committee in their consideration?

Also, why is it that the merits of the case - the appropriateness of the sanctions, the fact that it started with the Persian Empire (where Wizardman talked to me many, many times about the matter and said that I was acting appropriately when I held straw polls and RfCs to determine how the page should be decided), the events of the RfC on Risker that Moreschi deleted and should have had Risker recuse herself from the case - were ignored and other merits, which do not reflect the events, chose to be the "case"?

Finally, why is there a statement that claims I inappropriately requested a CU when John Vandenberg and two other CUs stated that there was more than enough evidence and a check was performed, which is easy to verify?

Another: why is it that the community was split on restricting me, and overturned many of the recent blocks by a significant margin as not being appropriate, and there being no RfC previous, with no history of sock puppetry, no legal threats, no edit warring, no POV pushing, and nothing that is traditionally needed to even consider a ban, that the committee felt that any of this was appropriate or didn't set a bad precedent?

Thank you for any public responses. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I told Ottava to ask himself after being asked to ask for him, since I consider that it would be more straightforward and honest if he were to just ask himself. I trust it will not affect your replies, I have no stake or involvement with the question. Prodego ^talk 16:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are considered unmentorable by the committee? (I can't, offhand, recall a situation where you actually constructively took input about your behavior from anyone else, which is a key thing that a successful mentoree needs to be able to consistently do, when his mentors talk, he listens. Carefully. Without carping back.). Also, didn't you just quit Wikipedia again? Perhaps I'm confused about that. ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that Wikipedia doesn't do consistency, but I'm struck by the contrast between this situation and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse. In both cases, the question was how to handle an editor with valued content contributions but difficult interpersonal interactions. In the earlier case, there seemed to be an effort to see how far we as a community could bend over backward to accommodate the editor in question - for whom an equally good case for "unmentorability" was made - whereas here the option of mentorship seems to have been discarded.

I'm not arguing for a specific outcome here - in fact, I'll stay on record as believing that mentorship shouldn't be a get-out-of-jail-free card at Arbitration - but I'm curious about the reasons why these two cases were handled differently. It could be as simple as different voices leading the Committee's discussions in the two cases, or perhaps learning from the issues with mentorship in the earlier case, but it's just one of those things... MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated on more than one occasion that I am biased in this matter, mostly because a ban on OR increases my work load on the articles he and I have been planning to expand and refine. What strikes me about the proposed remedies is that they did not offer the same paths as recent cases involving the same problems, notably Mattissee's. OR's intention in content editing is to provide the best content possible for the articles he has worked on and created, and my understanding of this process is that it is designed to clear up disruptions so that normal editing of the encyclopedia can resume. That mentorship has not been mentioned by the committee thus far is concerning to me, as I feel that this avenue has the highest probability of keeping the encyclopedia productive. If what's best for the project is to have the runner up of last year's wikicup restricted from working on articles for a year, I think there should be a formal explanation as to why previous remedies for similar cases fail to apply. Mrathel (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava was mentored during the last few months of 2008. It failed. --

Folantin (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

And Mattisse has shown a certain degree of insight into the matters concerning herself. That's a crucial condition. It's obvious that Ottava still believes that because he didn't intend to do wrong he didn't do wrong. Hans Adler 19:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and anybody who thinks Ottava didn't get a chance please look at Question to Ottava Rima from Newyorkbrad and Additional question to Ottava Rima from Newyorkbrad. I guess that's the point where he made the ban inevitable. Hans Adler 20:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how "getting a chance" has anything to do with it. He was asked a question by Newyorkbrad which he did not answer, at least not onwiki. As far as I know, someone involved in these cases is not obligated to suggest sanctions for himself before any voting has taken place to formally conclude that the majority of the committee, not only Newyorkbrad, feels this way. Had the question been posed after the voting on the finding of facts were finished, I am sure there would have been a different outcome. But my concern stems from a lack of a formal discussion showing that mentorship is not an option in this case though it has been in others. Mrathel (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rightly or wrongly, ArbCom is not bound by precedent, so the fact that mentorship was done in one case is not a requirement or binding mandate that it be done in another. However I'm not totally clear on what you are asking to have happen here. Would a finding passed by ArbCom that "Mentorship is not considered suitable in this case" be what you're looking for? ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think if Ottava had given even an inch, if he had shown any indication to reflect on his own contribution to what got him here, then it would have been considered. If he hadn't continued to argue with absolutely everybody - to the extent of accusing one of those giving evidence of meatpuppetry. If he hadn't continued to insist that the only significant content in

WP:NPA is the two sentences in each confirming the absolutely beyond the pale block on sight offenses; and that all the rest is just aspirational. If he hadn't been absolutely convinced that everything that happened was a conspiracy against him. Then the outcome might have been different.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Ottava already had his "last chance" back in late July/August 2008 [9]. He avoided a community ban by accepting mentorship from Ceoil. It didn't work. --

Folantin (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I really don't want to dig deeper into this than I already have, but my concern is that Ottava was contacted by rlevse regarding a mentorship and stated that he would accept one, yet no proposal of mentorship was voted upon. I know that arbcom is not limited by precedent, but in this case, the finding of fact that OR is a valuable content editor should at least have a segway into his ban from the project by showing that nothing can be done to keep him here without disruption of the community. Elen, you yourself suggested a mentorship in the workshop, and I think that most editors who posted in that area felt that a mentorship was a possibility that should at least be voted upon by the committee. As for Folantin's suggestion that mentorship did not work in the past, I would point to the finding of fact shows that there was a pause in OR's blocks from July 2008 to September 2009, which leads me to believe that mentorship might be the key to keeping OR editing without disruption. Mrathel (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no let up in Ottava's feuding in 2009 (Ariosto, his failed RFA and its aftermath, the Persian Empire etc. etc.), which is why we have reached this ArbCom. Had he tried to stick to his editing philosophy as outlined in his mentorship guidelines we wouldn't be here. --

Folantin (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

@Mrathel - I have no knowledge of where Rlevse's suggestion went, neither party confiding in me. I myself did not suggest mentorship, rather people with a shepherd function who could order Ottava to walk away from a discussion when he got over heated. I could think of no way someone could cajole Ottava into doing that, my suggestion was along the lines of 'leave or take an early bath', which I don't think really qualifies as mentorship. Isn't Rlevse one of the Arbs who originally signed up to this case?Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship is a non-starter unless the person is able to recognize they are doing something wrong and honestly desires to change. This is the most fundamental necessity in any behavioral modification: first you must acknowledge that you have a problem. Ottava has to 1) recognize he is doing something wrong, and 2) want to change. Unless he makes these two items evident, or gives us sincere promises to that regard, I don't see how mentorship can be anything other than another exercise in frustration and massive community time-waste.

If Ottava wants to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, but lacks sufficient self-reflection and humility to recognize the uncivil, bullying, abusive nature of his behavior, continues to believe that what happened to him is everyone else's fault, and insists on his right to continue interacting with the community in his previous manner (as is implied in his message above), then the only way forward would be to impose some sort of restriction from talk or Wikipedia space after his ban expires. My opinion. Antandrus (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without giving any opinion on whether these proposed sanctions are appropriate or whether the sanctions in the Mattisse case are appropriate, in my opinion the two cases are very dissimilar. The evidence in the Mattisse case was focused on disruption of processes and personalization of issues. Mattisse's focus, for the most part, has been on review processes and more gnoming work and copyediting. Ottava Rima's focus has been on content-building, with a smaller role in review processes. In this case evidence has been given (again, making no interpretation on the merits of the evidence) that there has been disruption on articles and many issues over article content. Much more harm can be done to the encyclopedia if articles are disrupted than if review processes are. Karanacs (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mrathel, the obvious solution to your practical dilemma is for you to stay in touch with Ottava by email. He can comment on drafts for you or even author text that you can post. I don't think that would be seen as sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry if it is genuine article development and not tendentious. If you are willing to engage in the talk page debates then perhaps Ottava will see how you manage it and that will help him to prepare for an eventual return. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Another: why is it that the community was split on restricting me, and overturned many of the recent blocks by a significant margin as not being appropriate, and there being no RfC previous, with no history of sock puppetry, no legal threats, no edit warring, no POV pushing, and nothing that is traditionally needed to even consider a ban, that the committee felt that any of this was appropriate or didn't set a bad precedent?" Because in no one place (at least recently) has the scale of your appalling behaviour been demonstrated. The arbs themselves were shocked, as shown in the proposal to ban you for a year, and so was I. (I knew you coupld be difficult at times, but I wasn't aware of how difficult you could be to how many people how often). Viridae^Talk 02:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My explanation for supporting a ban in this case is contained in my vote on remedy 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An answer

I have never claimed to be perfect. Quite the opposite, I mentioned all of my flaws in my defense of Mattisse. I know I fuck up. I know I upset people. I know that a lot of people think my writing is absolute shit. Hell, my talk page was once filled with statements saying how I was so awful for being a traditional Catholic. I've consistently received hate mail and attacks on Wikipedia Review. Do I deserve it? Probably. Obviously, there is a huge perception of me out there. Cary Bass basically confirmed that everyone thinks of me in a manner that is not really too pleasant, and I will let him explained what he stated because he definitely thinks I am horrible at summarizing or quoting him. Hell, the first thing Brad ever really said to me directly was: "I find that you're difficult enough to deal with on-wiki already, without your going out of your way on purpose to cause mischief".

I have gone to Casliber, John Vandenberg, Rlevse, Coren, New York Brad, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Charles Matthews, FT2, DGG, Tznkai, MBisanz, Prodego, MzMcBride, SBJohnny, Peter Symonds, J.delanoy, etc, etc, etc, quite regularly begging for advice, help, the right path, anything, simply because I don't have answers. New York Brad started the case demanding that I give answers. I told him that I wouldn't have any, because it was obvious that I bumbled my way into the mess. Hell, if I wasn't able to get an RfC put together correctly and then had every other attempt at dispute resolution closed rather quickly, it obviously isn't my best suit.

I posted this case because I wanted answers. I wanted the ArbCom to decide if Jehochman's single restriction was appropriate. I wanted ArbCom to decide if the lack of consensus at the time was appropriate. I wanted ArbCom to decide if Ncmvocalist filing an "appeal" against my will was appropriate. I wanted ArbCom to decide if closing the restriction in less than 24 hours by a guy who gave his opinion in the matter early on was appropriate. I haven't seen answers on any of this. It is very frustrating to see that. It is very frustrating to have a long sit down with Rlevse about everything, discussion mentorship, negotiating with various people, seeing as how it would work, etc, without anyone considering a thing.

It is rather obvious that my pleas have gone un-heeded. It is obvious that most of my defenders are quickly shouted down. Seeing Roger Davies stating that it was "overdue" for me to be banned was upsetting, especially when if he would have just contacted me when he first thought that way I would have gone. I am glad I put my neck on the line when Mattisse had a ban proposal about her, because to have ArbCom make such things is an incredibly shitty feeling.

Yes, it was frustrating to be in a very long dispute with Moreschi and Folantin. Yes, it was frustrating to constantly see my work attacked and criticized by them. I let that frustration come out far too often. But there is definitely a difference between such a thing and an ArbCom statement, as they represent two very different things.

I would like an answer as to why the Persian Empire page is not mentioned at all here, when there was consistent edit warring, tag teaming, and statements by an arbitrator, Wizardman, that I was correct both publicly and privately. I would especially like to know how it was ignored when there was an RfAr dealing with the page that led up to all of this.

I would like an answer as to why Risker refused to recuse herself even though Moreschi deleted my RfC on her pointing out that she consistently allowed Geogre to continue socking inappropriately on Utgard Loki (with statements to Yellow Monkey which made it clear she knew he was a sock 5 months before he was desysopped). This RfC was a central aspect of the case. I have also seen no statement regarding the appropriateness of Moreschi deleting an RfC without an MfD or anything about my attempt to go to WQA and a user who was on probation causing problems with that. I also do not see any comments on the role of Unitanode, a restart account (confirmed by multiple Arbitrators - I can forward proof if needed) who may have had a history with both myself and/or Mattisse in their prior incarnation.

I would like to know why there is a statement from ArbCom saying that I never tried to go through processes when I consistently tried to start WQA, AN, ANIs, and sent many emails to the ArbCom email list seeking help or advice on the matter. I would also like the ArbCom to acknowledge that there were emails.

I would also like the Arbitrators, Vassyana, Carcaroth, Rlevse, New York Brad, Wizardman, and Coren, to admit that I contacted all of them (in addition to ex Arbitrators Casliber and John Vandenberg) about these various issues seeking advice and guidance on how to act in these matters.

I would like the Arbitrators to admit that the CU log shows that Moreschi and Folantin have been checked in the past to see if they were sock puppets because of the information that was revealed over the years about their behavior (regarding [10]).

I would like the Arbitrators to admit that the CU log shows that Fowler&fowler was checked, based on my direct communication with multiple CUs, including John Vandenberg, based on an obviously logged out user that was using an IP that was similar to the editing of Fowler&fowler (regarding [11]). As you can see here, the IP was reinforcing what Fowler was stating that led up to the comment here, which was stated out of frustration (and a well-known hatred of mine against the current Britannica). And yes, I admit that my hatred for the current Britannica does not belong on Wikipedia. I would also note that multiple people have had serious problems with Fowler&fowler's behavior, which was accepted by Rlevse before. He has been proposed to be topic banned multiple times by multiple users, with those such as Yellow Monkey, Iridescent, and others having problematic involvements with his use of FAC.

In regards to this, I have apologized to Akhilleus for the frustration and pain I caused him in the inappropriate manner I used the allegations against him instead of dealing with individual complaints where there were more than enough to merit a legitimate response.

This was born out of frustration. However, I do stand by Derrida's importance as a critic of Saussure. Derrida is not literary theory but the philosophy of language as a whole. If ArbCom wishes, I can contact various professors of linguistics who can forward information explaining the relationship of the philosophy of language within the field of linguistics. However, my way of arguing in that matter was grandiose, pompous, and inappropriate.

"wikistalking" - I have had only a few problems -

But yes, I am "retired". I am retired by ArbCom, who felt fit that I should be banned. Unlike others, I wont come back on another account. I wont go to WR and lash out. I wont IP vandalise. I wont harass people in real life. I am proud of my work here and the pages I accomplished with the help of many. I am proud that many of them will continue on my work and complete it. I would not do anything to destroy that, as I will always be proud to be known as a top content contributor here and that my legacy is secured. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is obvious that most of my defenders are quickly shouted down." This is quite true. But what's sad is that almost always it was you who was shouting them down. You were offered many, many lifelines (as SandyG called them). You turned your nose up at each one. I can't say I'm happy about the end result, but nobody, you least of all, should be in the slightest bit surprised. In the end, you gave ArbCom little alternative. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that I have caused Sandy alone so much pain, grief, and problems over the past two years that it alone would warrant my being banned. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"many others from IRC also showed up". Hey, thanks for admitting you canvassed on IRC, Ottava. It was kind of obvious what was going on when all kinds of people with no previous interest in Iranian history turned up on Talk:Persian Empire out of the ether, but now we have it from the horse's mouth. I suggest that Ottava should be blocked from using the Wikipedia IRC channels for the duration of his ban to avoid any chance of this happening again. --

Folantin (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• To Ottava: I noticed yesterday a couple of your posts (your talk page and above on this page.); but I wanted to think about how to reply overnight. Perhaps it's solely my own perception, but I get the sense of a change in the air here recently. That's to say that it seems (to me) that you want to continue editing here, and that you have noticed some areas in which you could improve in some aspects. Realizing something can be improved is always the first step. On the other hand it seems as though you've conceeded defeat in some repects, and wish to leave some parting words. I'd ask that you not view this as the conclusion of a book Ottava, but rather the end of a chapter. The impression I've had is that 1.) Your article work is to be admired. 2.) Communication between you and many in the community often leads to discord and disconent. I'm willing to try to help with number 2, and perhaps you can help me with number 1. :). I recall reading somewhere that "we're not here to make friends". While that is true, it can be a wonderful fringe benefit and side effect. While I am pressed for time, I will get out an email to you either Thursday evening, or sometime Friday via your Wikipedia email link. What I had in mind was copy and pasting your last 2 posts from this page, and then editing them in the way that you would if I sent you a draft on an article. If that's acceptable to you, then I really look forward to getting started. Communication between humans is difficult in the best of circumstances, when we throw in the limitations of "no facial expressions or voice inflection to guage intent", Internet communication becomes even more of a challange. I will do my best to work with you, (if you're interested), and perhaps we'll both become richer in the experience. I do share your love of poetry (although I'm not as well educated in its construct), as well as a strong belief in a supreme being - so hopefully we can find a common-ground to work from. I hope, and actually believe, that with a few minor adjustments the community would be open to welcoming you, and your return to content contributions. Cheers and best. —
   ?  12:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

What I discussed with Ottava Rima was personal in nature, between the Volunteer Coordinator and an active(?) volunteer (a contributor of featured to Wikipedia). I endeavor to not publicly opine on user behavior, and I'm not going to repeat anything I said to him on the wiki because I consider our conversation to be private. I hope everyone will disregard his interpretation of our conversation for the very reason he suggested I explain the conversation myself. Cary Bass Bastique ^demandez 23:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FoF #6 Wording

Some of the Arbs were uncomfortable with the word 'Cabal' so it was changed. My understanding is that 'Meatpuppet' is also less than satesfactory when it comes to word choice in Arb decisions. May I suggest from EEML the term 'Improper Coordination'?

Ottava Rima's allegations that a group of editors are engaging in improper coordination and are out to get him, supposedly composed of a number of administrators as well as various regular editors, do not appear to have any basis in fact.

198.161.174.222 (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The more common term would be "conspiracy" wouldn't it?

Ask me) 16:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Shhhh! You aren't supposed to call things what they actually are. You describe what it is without really saying it. That way no one gets offended. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Come on folks .. please. OR is looking for some guidance in how to work through this. Let's not engage in all the "cabal" and "conspiracy theory" stuff. Yes, any time you have a group of people working in the same area for any extended period of time, there will be folks that get to know one another, maybe exchange email addys, perhaps even build relationships to the "friendship" levels. At the end of the day, we're all individuals working on building an encyclopedia - can we concentrate on how to work through the problems at hand rather than pointing fingers and crying "corruption" ... please? —
   ?  17:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

May I ask what part of the above constitued pointing of fingers and crying "corruption"? Or how suggesting that a FoF be re-worded in a way so that semi-offensive neologisms are left out somehow undermines OR's attempt to gain guidance? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Ched I think you have have misinterpreted this discussion, a lack of context perhaps.

Ask me) 19:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

OK .. fine ... whatever... my bad. If anyone wants to sit and engage in "coulda, woulda, shoulda" talk - that's their choice. Personally I see it as a case where the Arbs were faced with an unwinable situation; they did (or are doing) their very best to find a resolution to a difficult situation. Ottava has also indicated that he realizes that there's a problem, and he's stated outright that he wants to work towards a solution here. Personally, I'm going to work on talking to folks - putting the past in the past, and searching for a better future. In my opinion sitting here and saying "you didn't say "x", when "y" did "z" is a huge waste of time. You all do what you want to do - nobody has any control over that. I think it is outright undeniable that Ottava has been one of the most prolific contributors to our project over the last year. The communication problems are a concern, and I don't see how trying to find the proper wording between "meatpuppets" and "conspiracy", and ... whatever the hell accusations you want to make, is going to improve the project. You kids do whatever it is you want to do - and I'll work on finding a path that leads to understanding. cheers —

 ?  20:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I think you are still misunderstanding, we are not trying to find the right words for our accusation, we are not making any accusation, we are trying to find the right word to describe OR's accusations. Regardless, it is a minor point and I don't see any great importance in continuing its discussion. Also, I am not a kid, I have not been for some time now.

Ask me) 21:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Because arbcom is 'serius bidness' and are the final word on proper decorum on wikipedia it is nessesary for them to maintain an image of professionalism and fairness. Throwing around perjoratives at people expecting a fair and reasoned judgement over serious matters undermines its credibility. While terms like 'cabal', 'meatpuppet', and 'conspiracy' may be the most fully complete and descriptive words one can use for the statement, the fact is that those words are most commonly associated with insults within the culture of wikipedia. Arbcom isn't in the business of insulting people who are supposed to respect their authority. Further, as leaders of the community they are expected to conform to the highest standards of behavior for that community. Word choice and its effects on people are one of the biggest concerns of the community, indeed this very case. If they signed off on a Finding of Fact that says OR is a tinfoil hat wearing nutjob then they would effectively give liscence to the comminuty that it is ok to call people tinfoil wearing nutjobs. Hense, a reaonable amount of effort to ensure proper word choice in their rulings serves to reinforce the basic standards of decorom of the rest of the comminuty which is implicitly assumed to be nessesary for the improvement of the project. <exhale> 198.161.174.222 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom's difficult task

Since ArbCom's work—all voluntary—is often acknowledged only in the protests of its decisions or in the refutations of those protests, I would like to accord it more explicit recognition here.

ArbCom had a difficult case before them. There was mounds and mounds of evidence to sift through and weigh. I don't remember now when the case was opened, but it could easily have been over a month ago. That, in and of itself, is quite the long haul. In addition to the evidence, there were many discussions on the various talk pages and in the case workshop, many of them vigorous and some heated. Regardless of how one feels about the decision itself, one cannot help but be impressed by the sheer stamina it must have taken to arrive at any decision. That ArbCom acquitted itself, in my view, with professionalism, grace and consideration, is an added bonus.

The next time naysayers carp about Wikipedia's disconnect from its core values and prophesy Wikipedia's imminent demise, I hope we will remember ArbCom's work here as a potent counter-example. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this case without participating. I second Fowler&fowler's comment. This has been a complicated case and the committee has handled it in a systematic and straightforward manner. This is an example for future committees to follow.   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too have been impressed by arbcom's handling of cases in general. I did not say so before because I took a clear position in this case that is supported by the arbcom members, and I thought it would appear insincere due to this. However it is not just this case, but their handling of cases in general. I have certainly disagreed strongly with some of their findings, that is inevitable, but for the most part I have found their judgments to be very much in line with the communities expectations and practices.

Ask me) 01:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This is the first discussion I have seen followed, and I must say that I do not envy the committee; they seem to be in a difficult position of fixing problems that the community and administrators have been unable to take care of on their own. I can think of a few things could be done differently, but I do not have any illusions about being able to do a better job. The committee should be commended for taking on such a large problem and dealing with it professionally. While I don't agree with everything Fowler said, I do think the community should show its gratitude for the amount of work the members of the committee put into these cases. Mrathel (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia still about its content?

Ottava Rima was the best writer I knew on this website, hands down.

Ottava Rima has also been known to be a pain in the ass, understood. Now, if Wikipedia is still about its content, and not actually various game of trials and elections... then I don't see why we are getting rid of one of our BEST writers.

I'd rather see him banned from ANI or RfA or talk pages or whatever, but to see (IMO) our best writer banned because he isn't "acting nice" makes me think I'm not here for the right reasons myself.

I wanted Ottava Rima in the WikiCup, as he planned to be. Have you seen the list of work he put in during the last Cup? More than I've done in my entire time on here. Now he's unable to join, and Wikipedia will suffer. In my opinion, a ban based on the opinion of 6 people who are tired of hearing complaints about Ottava isn't fair. I'd rather see a community discussion, where we have more than 6 opinions. No, actually I'd rather see him unbanned, and we let him try to start over, while he resumes his work on Wikipedia's articles.

What a shame.

^talk at 21:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand, but, speaking generally, you also can't have an environment where no one else wants to contribute because people with difficult behavior make it too painful to bother. Wknight94 ^talk 21:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that a lot of people liked working with him...

^talk at 21:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn't add my name to that list, but I made my feelings known elsewhere. Ottava wasn't always easy to work with, but then who is, if they're really passionate about what they're doing? I really, really, hate this childish notion that we all have to get on. There are some editors here I will despise until the day I die, but I don't seek them out, I try to avoid them. No doubt many feel that way about me. Big deal, who cares? That's life, and we need to accept that wikipedia is no different from the rest of the world. --

Fatuorum 22:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

(edit conflict)I hope that is not the opinion of most.

5 pillars on which Wikipedia is organized. In wider society it is a requisite to any voluntary shared endeavor. Whether in sport, at work, in social organizations, charities, families, shops, or among groups of friends, if you persistently make life miserable for your companions the outcome is usually one of three thing: you stop, you leave, or they leave. Some are willing to tolerate long-term abuse; most are not. Anonymous projects in particular require respectful cooperation. When that doesn't happen they degenerate into bullying and fighting, as so often happened when Ottava Rima did not get his way. The eventual result of letting peopole run amok is that people leave and a project falls apart. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sick of this meme. If I've never compromised and always bullied others to get my way, how did I get 40 GAs passed and 10 FAs passed? You can't do that without compromise, working with people, and the such. Furthermore, people like AD and others took the leads on a few of those FAs and shot down quite a few things I wanted. Read the talk page sometime. I've compromised far more than most people here and collaborated with more people than anyone else on this project. People don't consistently come to me for advice on articles, reviews at FAC or GAN, or help with other projects because they think I am unable to work with others. Oh, and you think I wanted long sections on Nicolo Giraud devoted to claims by academics that suggests Byron was having sex with the boy? No, but I compromised with User:Haiduc to get the article to a level we both agreed to. That is a fact, and I don't care how many people declare it otherwise, that fact can never change. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care how many times you did compromise. It's the number of times that you didn't, throwing insults at editors and reliable sources alike, that got you banned.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has Ottava been banned? When did that happen? --

Fatuorum 22:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It hasn't happened yet but it's imminent. Currently the 1 year ban is about to pass with 6:1. Only bainer's vote is missing, but it's not going to change anything. I think only two more arbs need to vote for closing the case, so Ottava will very likely be banned before Christmas. Ottava is making wild claims that sound as if he was the most pleasant and compromising editor of this wiki, so it's extremely unlikely that anyone will change their vote. Hans Adler 22:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, you seem to have ridiculously low standards for your own behaviour. It's not enough to sometimes not destroy the wiki. As you should have understood by now doing it once a week is enough to get you banned. Hans Adler 22:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, you were following me on multiple pages because I pointed out that your claim that there was a "typo" on a page was factually wrong and you threw a fit. I told you if you wanted to prove it was an error in the edition then you had to provide a first edition as proof. You never did. Examine yourself sometime. You couldn't handle being proven wrong so you went after me over and over. I've never followed anyone to other pages or consistently went after them on their talk page, but you were warned off of mine multiple times. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just wow. 1. I wasn't talking about that particular instance. I am not used to being bullied, but I am sufficiently self-confident not to be bothered by the experience. 2. Get your facts right. The incident you are referring to happened in July on Talk:The Awful German Language, an article where I arrived before you. We had had one previous interaction in May. [12] I am not aware of any further interaction before your attacks on Chillum that ultimately misled you into filing this Arbcom case against yourself. Please list the pages to which I followed you. 3. "I told you if you wanted to prove it was an error in the edition then you had to provide a first edition as proof. You never did." Yes, you told me I had to jump through insane hoops to correct a blatant error in the text that Durova copied from an undisclosed source – most likely Project Gutenberg or WikiSource; I asked her but she avoided the question, in retrospect I would say most likely to enable your bullying. That was precisely the problem. Is that how literary scholars work? Preferring unlikely readings in random undisclosed sources over the third edition? 4. Of course I didn't provide a first edition. I am not going to locate a 130-year-old American book in a European library just because an anonymous self-styled literary scholar has decided to defend a single silly typo in the WikiSource edition against correction. 5. "You couldn't handle being proven wrong so you went after me over and over." Wrong. You didn't prove me wrong, and I could handle your bullying very well by just walking away. The point where I started following you was when you started following Chillum. 6. "I've never followed anyone to other pages or consistently went after them on their talk page". See 5.

In retrospect I think I now understand what was going on. You and Durova seem to have formed an ego boosting symbiosis. I don't think my attempts to help at that article can reasonably be understood as criticism of Durova. Yet you understood them that way, attacked me, and caused a situation in which she had to choose between making a fool of herself by agreeing with your silliness, and breaking the symbiosis by exposing your buffoonery. She found a way out: Simply not caring about the details in question and denying me the basic information I was asking for. If I had known that this article had something to do with

WP:THERAPY, I would not have become involved. Hans Adler 23:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Outdent - "an article where I arrived before you" Hans, that is factually inaccurate. [13] As you can see, I was one of the creators of the page. 15:18, 17 July 2009 Ottava Rima (talk | contribs) (1,015 bytes) Why do you persist to make such outrageous factually incorrect comments when a simple check has ALWAYS proven you wrong? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(@Malleus)For the record, I don't believe we do all have to get along. I find that the most intelligent people I know are often the most difficult, and I believe that working in an online environment requires a certain thickness of skin. That said, I think it's possible to work with people - even if you think they are fools - without needlessly demeaning them or denigrating their contributions. Anyway, I've already been drawn into this more than I wished, so that's my final word here. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec'd) Posting to say that Ottava Rima turned out to be a pleasure to work with. We've written several DYKs together and he's certainly capable of polite disagreement (he and I aren't ideological soulmates). During the 2009 WikiCup in particular his sportsmanship was exemplary. I finished first and he was runner-up, which one would think might generate conflict but it didn't at all. When he and I first crossed paths nearly two years ago we locked horns rather badly, but afterward completely put that in the past. Am not sure why things didn't turn the corner with the people who posted evidence to this case. But to assert that he's incapable of seeing past conflict would be a mistake: he made up with Geogre too (and Geogre had even socked discussions against Ottava--which would be very hard to see past but Ottava managed it). Durova³⁸³ 22:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd second that. Ottava and I are ideologically poles apart, and we haven't always seen eye-to-eye, but I'd have no hesitation in collaborating with him on any subject of common interest. This rumour that he's incapable of working with others is just ridiculous. --
  Fatuorum 22:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

In real life, I suspect many of us have known the person who is a genius/artist/super human being, except when crossed/under pressure/in drink etc etc. In real life, it may be possible to head trouble off at the pass, to take someone aside for a quiet word, to move on to another bar or whatever. Here, all we have at the end of the day is typescript on a computer screen, and it's far harder to talk someone down. That's what's led to this. In real life OR would have friends who would be able to interpose, to change the subject, to jolly him or totake him out for a pie and a pint. But here, all we have is this endless typescript, and things appearing on people's watchlists without warning or mediation.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. We also have the option to ignore things we'd find more difficult to ignore in real life. You just called me a bitch? I can easily not respond, pretend that I didn't hear it; rather harder to do if you call me a bitch to my face in a bar, surrounded by your friends. --

Fatuorum 01:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Any chance the community can overturn this decision? I guarantee you we'd garner a consensus to not ban.
  ^talk at 03:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • If I may give some advice, as the arbitrator that opposed the 1-year ban as excessive, I would advise Ottava to work productively elsewhere (on another wiki, such as wikisource or elsewhere), demonstrate the ability to change their behaviour, and then, after 6 months, to appeal the 1-year ban and ask to be allowed to return under conditions yet to be decided, as laid out in remedy 3:

    Ottava Rima - Conditions for return to editing. Should Ottava Rima elect to return to editing Wikipedia, he shall be placed on probation for a period and under conditions to be determined prior to his return to editing. Should he wish to return to editing, Ottava Rima shall contact the Arbitration Committee via email after completing not less than half of his scheduled ban to discuss terms of the probation; the discussion may include the involvement of the community at the applicable noticeboard or as a motion of the Arbitration Committee.

    Please note the explicit possibility of community involvement. We can't stop a petition being raised now, but the choice is there, to do that now (and possibly fail), or wait 6 months and sort out a conditional return. Carcharoth (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been running since the beginning of November. Anybody who wanted to defend Ottava Rima has had ample opportunity to do so. I see absolutely no reason to restart the whole business in the foreseeable future. --

Folantin (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Troubled

There has been a troubling trend in the way arbitration talk pages get used. This page's talk ought to be used to raise factual discrepancies about how the evidence is reflected in the proposed decision. For a good example of the right use of proposed decision talk, see these two discussions: an editor was upon the verge of sanction based on unsubstantiated claims against him, then the arbitrators changed a findging after other editors pointed out that the chronology and evidence didn't fit together. There has always been a signal to noise ratio at proposed decision talk, yet three years ago standard practice was to filter out the noise. Now the norm seems to be to line up maximum noise on both sides as if wikipolitics were a substitute for evidence.

Let's be candid: certain concepts that used to be fair application of Wikipedian norms have fallen by the wayside. Remember when people believed "adminship is no big deal"? How many people who read arbitration cases and admin boards really believe in "no vested contributors" anymore?

An uninvolved editor asked me today whether Ottava Rima would be getting sitebanned if he had as much support as Mattisse. I hope that comparison isn't valid, but fear it may be. After all, checkuser has caught Mattisse socking abusively but Ottava has never socked; Mattisse's content contributions weigh in her favor while Ottava's substantially greater work on content doesn't earn him much love. A comparison of the evidence would seem to point toward a milder sanction for Ottava Rima rather than Mattisse. Durova³⁸³ 23:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the same parallel a few threads up. I think one major difference is that a group of mentors/advocates went to the mat for Mattisse, whereas no similar group of committed advocates emerged for Ottava. I can think of several possible reasons for this discrepancy, none of which are particularly charitable to those concerned and which I won't bother voicing here. So I suppose you could just ascribe it to the fact that Wikipedia doesn't do precedent very well. MastCell ^Talk 23:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On principle it would be hard for me to specifically support a mentorship because I've often said this year that the concept has been overused and misused. Yet the sort of proposal I floated at Mattisse's last review might be feasible here as well (a modified namespace ban with a screener function, so that in certain parts of the encyclopedia he would need prior approval before posting). The Committee overlooked that proposal last time around, so it looks like the binary choice will continue to be mentorship versus banning until the community's patience gets as exhausted with badly structured mentorship as it was with badly structured discretionary sanctions. Sad to see it play out here. Durova³⁸³ 00:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, what you don't seem to get when you compare Ottava and Mattisse is that this isn't about punishment. It's about changing completely unacceptable behaviour. In Mattisse's case there was good reason to assume her behaviour would improve. Ottava has made it very clear that he is not going to change because there is nothing wrong with his behaviour; e.g. since he only habitually breaks those rules in

WP:CIVIL which are not clearly marked as being enforced with immediate blocks, he is civil. Hans Adler 00:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Respectfully disagreeing with the claim that there was ever a good reason to believe that Mattisse's behavior would improve with mentorship. After mentoring a lot of Wikipedians I looked at Mattisse and, even while we were on good terms, never regarded her as a suitable candidate. Her problems since mentorship was undertaken have made that assessment more popular. Durova³⁸³ 00:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think to some degree

WP:OTHERSTUFF applies here. Despite it being a somewhat laudatory goal to be very consistent, there are too many differing facts between the cases of problematic editors to say that they're direct analogs. We should use similar criteria, where applicable. But whether a particular user crossed a particular line, is or is not aware that they transgressed, are or are not felt to be rehabilitatable by people in a position to stand up for them, these are all case specific. If you think a more consistent review of other cases should be taken, with principles and criteria established in this and other cases, then that's a reasonable point and one I'd agree with at least in principle. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

One problem is the conflation of advocacy with mentorship. Perhaps the only "vested contributor" dilemma that ended well this year was ScienceApologist. When he was up for a three month siteban I did not object, although I was his mentor. Instead I found an uncontroversial article that was badly in need of attention and sought permission for him to improve it. He did magnificent work on the optics article during his ban and has been largely uncontroversial since his siteban expired. The difficulty in other situations with overuse of mentorship is that many editors who have no intention to reform will accept mentorship as an alternative to sitebanning, then maneuver the mentors into insulating the mentoree from the consequences of disruptive behavior. That sort of editor strings mentors along with promises of improvement and acceptance of trivial advice while backsliding on the big stuff. For a disruptive editor, the trick is to choose one's mentors well and keep them emotionally involved. I've resigned from two different mentorships over that issue and joined subsequent conduct RfCs against those individuals, but there have been other mentors whose attempts at assistance morphed into blind advocacy. One of those relationships occurred in another part of the Barrett v. Rosenthal arbitration linked above, and the mentor appears to have burned out shortly afterward. Durova³⁸³ 01:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

"There has been a troubling trend in the way arbitration talk pages get used." So let us discourage it. Geometry guy 00:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. It's time, Ottava Rima and his supporters, to take it on the chin and move on. The ball game is over. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That goes both ways, guys. Durova³⁸³ 02:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Moreschi's desysop?

When Moreschi indef blocked me until I groveled enough and admitted that Christopher Smart was not a Free Mason even though Kim Bruning told everyone that my sources were, indeed, correct, and the fact that I had 14 of them with some published in major, major presses was more than enough, and the fact that Moreschi was aiding Bishonen and her sock puppeting friend Geogre, why was he not desysopped?

When Moreschi edit warred on Ludovico Ariosto, made claims that I was wrong, and then threatened to block me, why was he not desysopped?

When Moreschi deleted out of process my RfC which showed how Risker covered up Geogre's sock puppetry for at least 5 months while as an Arb and should have been desysopped, why was he not desysopped?

When Moreschi not only outed me but spewed anti-Catholic hate speech, why was he not desysopped?

When Moreschi edited over 200 AfDs the same way as Folantin and it was already demonstrated that both of them worked on the same IRC room together and there were many witnesses, why was he not desysopped?

When Moreschi's actions were so suspicious that there are Check Users of him in the CU log showing that a CU felt that there was more than enough to warrant one, why was he not desysoppped?

Moreschi claims to have created content, but he only showed one article that wouldn't even merit B ranking.

You want to block me on claims of "incivility" or "not accepting I was wrong" or other stuff, fine. But there are major rule violations and it will go down exactly as to what this ruling was. I worked my ass off building pages and working with dozens upon dozens of users in not only building my own content and building theirs. Moreschi has a very long history of bullying people, abusing his ops, and working with others in an inappropriate manner. He has deleted dozens of pages that were not only great, but were necessary.

Those like SandyGeorgia wanted an ArbCom that respected content. This ArbCom has proven that it doesn't even have the guts to respect its own rules of conduct dealing with admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or hell, why was Risker allowed to let Geogre's friend Unitanode be a restart account and harass both me and Mattisse? We weren't even allowed to know who it was, but she is allowed to approve of such things. How about Elen approved as a restart? She continues to act above as if she is neutral when she isn't. Why was Risker allowed to let Geogre sock puppet? Hell, why was no other Arb willing to tell her that she blatantly should have recused? Why didn't any other Arb bother to tell her that she had no right to tell Bishonen that I was the one who gave Coren the evidence that Geogre was socking? Arbitrators aren't supposed to do -any- of this. The fact that Moreschi abused his admin ops to delete a legitimate RfC about this is a major part of this case. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking the arbs to desysop someone for doing things which you have provided no evidence of? If there is evidence, you haven't provided it: therefore you are to blame. If there isn't evidence you are letting your imagination run away from you and again, that's your fault. Newsflash: Arbcom isn't psychic. Viridae^Talk 03:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provided no evidence of? Did you bother to read the evidence page? Are you saying that the RfC was not mentioned? Are you saying that you didn't see Moreschi delete it? Are you saying that admin can now magically delete things like that without AfD or MfD? Or that Moreschi didn't edit war at Ludovico Ariosto and threatened to block me after being in a conflict on the talk page? These are all quite visible in the evidence section. Viridae, if you are going to respond, please actually do research first. Your incivil personal attacks are inappropriate. Why not keep them to Wikipedia Review like you normally do. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Viridae, if you had CU access you can see that Moreschi was checked by a very notable CU. Obviously, there was plenty of evidence to verify that there was problematic behavior to warrant such. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say the RfC was not mentioned? No. Did I say that Moreschi didn't delete it? No. RfCs can be deleted without an mfd or afd (afd is for articles for a start), and in that case the deletion was arguably correct because (among other reasons) the evidence for trying an failing to resolve the dispute was non-existent. Certainly, that isn't a desysoppable offence. In your evidence about Ludovico Ariosto you provide a grand total of 1 edit by Moreschi, an edit that wasn't even a revert to a previous version. You think that is desysoppable? Moreschi's "involvement" in the conflict on the talk page is negligable (at least according to the evidence you provided), amounting to three short posts which IMO were fairly moderate. And the threat to block you (again) was actually a comment on your pig headed behaviour. The same pig headed behaviour which has earned you a 1 year ban here. WHo the hell cares if Moreschi has been CU'ed? It makes no difference at all, unless the checkuser finds something incriminating, once again you attempt to appeal to unnamed higher authorities to support your argument. Honestly Ottava, if you think the evidence you presented against Moreschi would earn him a desysop you are off with the fairies. You are going to have to do far far better than that: start by having a look at the standards of evidence that have led to a desysop in previous arbcom cases. Viridae^Talk 04:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"RfCs can be deleted without an mfd or afd (afd is for articles for a start), and in that case the deletion was arguably correct because" Arguably correct because it would suit your brand of logic and argument. Beyond that, there is nothing within policy that would make it even close to being acceptable. Hell, there was an RfC without any certification that Brad posted a response to that wasn't immediately deleted. RfCs aren't wiped even if they are malformed. Unlisted, sure. Wiped, no. "WHo the hell cares if Moreschi has been CU'ed?" Obviously not you, because you don't care about what is right or wrong. I haven't seen you contribute anything to Wikipedia for the past two years except drama. My conscious, on the other hand, is clean, because I actually have some beautiful articles as my legacy. The only legacy here by the others is a pile of hate. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course aware that being checkusered is not a sign of guilt? Yes? Cool. I know for a fact that I have been checkusered in the past, and I am abusive sock free. Given your past behaviour I would give it a 50:50 chance that you have been checkusered too. It's a red herring and you know it. Viridae^Talk 04:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Viridae, do your research. The CU was completed by one of the Arbitrators that claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to claim that Moreschi was making suspicious edits. Either they lied in their vote or they violated WMF standards on when to use CU. I'm tired of the lies surrounding this case. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• this thread on my talk page is related. — Coren ^(talk) 05:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom originally was not to ban

Name redacted, but here is the chat (info redacted per Viridae's claims of "copyright"):

[11/15/2009 8:38:24 PM] Arbitrator:

[11/15/2009 8:39:02 PM] Arbitrator:

[11/15/2009 8:39:10 PM] Arbitrator:

[11/15/2009 8:39:25 PM] Teh Ottava: My internet is going slow tonight so I cant load the page to link you to it

[11/15/2009 8:39:33 PM] Teh Ottava: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava_Rima_restrictions/Evidence

[11/15/2009 8:39:36 PM] Teh Ottava: nevermind, there it goes

[11/15/2009 8:41:10 PM] Arbitrator:

[11/15/2009 8:41:18 PM] Arbitrator:

[11/15/2009 8:41:44 PM] Teh Ottava: Sure

[11/15/2009 8:41:53 PM] Arbitrator:

[11/15/2009 8:42:04 PM] Teh Ottava: But as I stated publically before, if even just one Arb wants me to stop and publically says so, I'll go

[11/15/2009 8:42:30 PM] Arbitrator:

[11/15/2009 8:42:36 PM] Arbitrator:

[11/15/2009 8:42:56 PM] Teh Ottava: Been there, had them, and it was rather voluntary. I also currently have many people who advise me before most of my posts

[11/15/2009 8:43:09 PM] Teh Ottava: Tznkai, Prodego, Peter Symonds, Durova, Nuclear Warfare to name a few

[11/15/2009 8:43:31 PM] Arbitrator:

[11/15/2009 8:43:31 PM] Teh Ottava: Occassionally I discuss matters with Tiptoety but not so much as he has been off in real life matters

[11/15/2009 8:43:44 PM] Teh Ottava: Also, DGG is quite active in advising me

[11/15/2009 8:43:51 PM] Teh Ottava: most disputes I run them by him for his opinion

[11/15/2009 8:43:53 PM] Arbitrator:

[11/15/2009 8:43:57 PM] Teh Ottava: Okay : )

[11/15/2009 8:44:10 PM] Arbitrator:

[11/15/2009 8:44:11 PM] Teh Ottava: I try to surround my edits with these people by the way, hence most of the shared FACs

[11/15/2009 8:44:14 PM] Arbitrator:

[11/15/2009 8:44:21 PM] Arbitrator:

[11/15/2009 8:44:50 PM] Arbitrator: p

[11/15/2009 8:44:50 PM] Teh Ottava: I wanted Casliber to co-nom Christopher Smart's early life but he said he only wanted to review it because it lacked reviews before

[11/15/2009 8:44:56 PM] Teh Ottava: and didnt want to take that away as a co-nom

[11/15/2009 8:45:03 PM] Teh Ottava: so, that is the reason why that one didnt have a co-nom

[11/15/2009 8:45:26 PM] Arbitrator:

[11/15/2009 8:45:30 PM] Teh Ottava: The only person I've had problems with at FAC so far has been Fowler, who attacked me for errors in Ceoil's writing, which is interesting

[11/15/2009 8:45:35 PM] Teh Ottava: I'll take Cas as a mentor any day : )

[11/15/2009 8:45:46 PM] Arbitrator:

[11/15/2009 8:45:49 PM] Teh Ottava: Jayvdb use to work as one for a while but then he stopped after he became an Arb

[11/15/2009 8:45:51 PM] Arbitrator:

[11/15/2009 8:45:58 PM] Teh Ottava: Iridescent and some others were trying to topic ban him

[11/15/2009 8:46:12 PM] Teh Ottava: Raul got him to back off after I put up a FAC immediately to catch him as wikistalking me

[11/15/2009 8:46:20 PM] Teh Ottava: But he came back during the fall

[11/15/2009 8:46:23 PM] Teh Ottava: a tad annoying

[11/15/2009 8:46:30 PM] Arbitrator:

[11/15/2009 8:46:36 PM] Arbitrator:

[11/15/2009 8:46:42 PM] Teh Ottava: Talk to Panda/NuclearNoir - in the recent FAC, Panda admitted to "burning him" and insulting him

[11/15/2009 8:46:50 PM] Teh Ottava: and fowler thinks I was the jerk during the FAC : )

[11/15/2009 8:46:59 PM] Arbitrator:

[11/15/2009 8:47:05 PM] Teh Ottava: I asked them not to

[11/15/2009 8:47:10 PM] Arbitrator:

[11/15/2009 8:47:13 PM] Teh Ottava: I don't want anyone speaking on my behalf

[11/15/2009 8:47:20 PM] Teh Ottava: They worked with me to craft neutral language

[11/15/2009 8:47:20 PM] Arbitrator:

[11/15/2009 8:47:23 PM] Teh Ottava: and that was all I wanted

I was contacted by multiple people contacted by the above arbitrator about the mentorship plan. I was also contacted by multiple Arbs about the plan. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you recieved permission to post this? And once again with appeals to un-named authority. Viridae^Talk 04:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't revealed any personal names so there is no need to ask for permission. Furthermore, this was done by an Arbitrator on official Arbitrator duty and the other Arbitrators know about the above chat. The Arbitrators above are acting as if there wasn't a major change based on people making backroom deals. Its time for some honesty. If people want to ban me, at least they can be honest about the real reasons they want me gone instead of the made up ones on the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored non "copyrighted" portions per this. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava's posting on Rlevse's talk page [14] identifies the arbitrator, who stepped down as co-drafter with Wizardman. (The banner at the top of this page has not been modified.) In view of that, posting this transcript serves no purpose. Mathsci (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it's OK to post IRC logs on Wikipedia now?* If so, I've got some corkers. (*NB: Yes, I know it probably isn't which is why I'm going to refrain from doing so). --

Folantin (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

We've already had the Adventures, Memoirs, Last Bow and Return of Ottava Rima. Actually, several of the latter two. Will he please write the Casebook off wiki, especially if he plans to mention me in conversations in which his interlocutor never replies? Alternatively, if mostly-one-sided conversations is what turns him on, will he consider a trip to Delphi? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of bringing this to a speedy conclusion?

ArbCom has made the right decision, for which many thanks. Could we now bring this case to an end? The only thing we are likely to gain by keeping it open is plenty more bickering and recrimination spread across half a dozen user talk pages. Cheers. --

Folantin (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The motion to close has passed. There is one issue left being discussed on the mailing list, but after that, it should be OK for the case clerk to close the case. Technically, we are in the 24-hour period between reaching net-four to close and closing (a final period for absolute last-minute arbitrator comments and voting). That 24-hour period ends 02:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC), and I will leave a note for the case clerk to close after that time unless instructed otherwise. Carcharoth (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. --

Folantin (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Just a question

Wouldn't something like this in the middle of an ArbCom case seem a tad interesting? Especially when it was pointed out that Moreschi probably shouldn't be bashing my faith on the case in the section above? Is it standard for an "objective" Arbitrator to recommend one of the people in a dispute and who was just acting nasty to another user to go ahead and tell that first person to run for ArbCom? I was always curious about that, but Coren never would explain himself to me. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another question

When ArbCom said I was unwilling to accept criticism and that nothing was to be done about Fowler, how did I act inappropriately when Fowler said the following on the Workshop page:

• "As I have already stated in my evidence, Ottava Rima is not an exceptional content contributor. The prose in his FAs is uniformly poor, unless it has benefited from the input of capable collaborators. What is a more serious concern for me (and for Wikipedia) is that in his relentless drive to add "content," he has taken unacceptable liberties with paraphrasing, and has introduced unacceptable errors in the content. And this is his FA work."

You know, the work that has had a lot of reviewers and has always held up under scrutiny.

• "by people with an surfeit of ambition and a deficit of application and effort, tends to create cabals. Members of these cabals turn up at each other'a reviews and cast the perfunctory votes needed to help each other's sickly contestants clamber over the top."

Oh, but all of those reviewers are part of my cabal.

• "I would like to suggest that Ottava Rima has created these sections (involving me) out of spite for the recent archiving his FAC nomination "The Author's Farce.""

Not that he went to the FAC during the ArbCom case after making claims that I was unable to write, of course.

• "Ottava Rima's prose is full (indeed chock-full) of constructions that are impossible to construe. They make Wikipedia articles look like undergraduate term papers that still haven't made it to the prof's desk."

• Or this doozy where he starts making disparaging comments about my mental health.

• Or the fact that Fowler was proven to WikiStalk me after claiming that all of my pages have problems. Raul even told Fowler that it was inappropriate. That was all compiled here.

Instead, ArbCom makes it seem like he had legitimate criticism where every single one of his statements include things like "you can't write English" and other attacks. I have already proven that most of his criticism is things like "the word Marriage is antiquated", which is so factually wrong that it can't be considered "criticism". Ottava Rima (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]