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

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

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

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Parties involved

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Questions to Ottava Rima from Hipocrite

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

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

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

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

Question to Ottava Rima from Newyorkbrad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Moreschi

Proposed principles

Professionalism

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Quite. Some days an editor can be blocked for something direct but quite mild, other times nothing short of outrageous racist abuse merits a reaction. ETA - and even then, only the fourth admin agrees [3]. In light of this (a) its not surprising that someone with poor social skills or a short fuse gets confused and (b) the proposed statement is mere prosying. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't blame the "Persian patriots" for Ottava's mistakes. They may be a tendentious lot but they have rarely reached the levels of absurdity displayed here [4]. --Folantin (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

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

You're right. I should have gone straight to ANI when Ottava made his first edit to Talk:Persian Empire[5] because it was a blatant violation of WP:TALK. But I knew nothing would be done about it and when he got off scot-free after threatening to harass John Kenney off-wiki [6] that simply confirmed my belief he had a licence to break the rules without sanction. The comment by Crossmr at the end is particularly apposite: "That kind of situation is a clear indication that a hard look should be taken at the user, and the enablers. Anyone who continually excuses a user in my opinion is nearly as guilty in terms of committing the violations that they commit." --Folantin (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Do I have to have you banned from this department?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Wikipedia is not

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Timesink

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Proposed findings of fact

Ottava Rima

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

The Grand Cabal

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Proposed remedies

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

Ottava Rima banned

1a) Ottava Rima is banned for a year.

1b) Ottava Rima is banned for 6 months.

1c) Ottava Rima is banned for 3 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Ottava Rima restricted: part 1

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Ottava Rima restricted: part 2

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:SB_Johnny

Proposed principles

Amateurism

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:JzG

Proposed principles

Ownership

1) Wikipedia is a collaborative project, no individual owns any article. Florid rhetoric exaggerating the importance of your own favoured text ([7]) is disruptive and not conducive to the spirit, practice or smooth function of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

OR's comment [8] at Bish's talk page is hyperbole of the most counterproductive nature. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Proposals by Ottava Rima

Proposed principles

Edit warring

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Folantin and Moreschi's relationship section Encounters #8. Per [9], the page was reverted 24 times. Many of the edit summaries included comments like: "revert - If you want to revert it to the crappy old version, first justify it in the talk page", "Revert to Fullstop - The old crappy version is so full of misinformation that cannot be useful in any sense", "rrv to Fullstop`s version, please read WP:VANDAL, cleaning up a poorly written page, is not vandalism", "revert - Where did you count the people who support this misinformation?", "rv unproductive revert from unproductive user." - Dbachmann, "revert - Uninvlved users should first read the discussion and then elaborate their justification in the talk page (before doing any drastic edit)", and "revert; that rationale doesn't make sense". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

All users are human

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed based as an abridged form of [10]. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

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

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

ArbCom decorum

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Civility

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

The purpose of these principles are to point out existing policy pertinent to the case, not to create new ones: [11] "Proposed principles should be grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines." Also, the above statement of Civil is directly taken from WP:CIVIL and its secondary links, so there is no redefinition. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Jehochman and Ottava Rima

1) After a series of fruitful communications between Jehochman and Ottava Rima, and per [12], Jehochman and Ottava Rima have a better understand each other's positions and the events surrounding the affair. There is no longer a concern among the filing party about Jehochman's use of administrative authority in this matter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

It should be noted that, per this, the admin that declared what community consensus was happened to 1. add their opinion into the conversation which violates the "uninvolved" aspect of determining the consensus and 2. the number they stated (22 supports, 8 opposes) was actually much different (20 supports and 14 opposes with 5 unclear statements). The vote was started 17:17, 3 November 2009 and closed 03:38, 4 November 2009, a mere 10 hours with many of the people carrying over from a previous hostile discussion that just ended ( [13] user:J, Chris0) along with containing inappropriate sections, such as this section by Hans Adler. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

Ottava Rima's content work

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh yes, I forgot I was one of a group of "five vandals dead set destroying this place" and treating Wikipedia "like a whore" [14]. I have 8000 edits to article space compared with your 5000. I have significantly improved Wikipedia's coverage of the history of Iran from the 16th to the 18th centuries over the past couple of years. As part of this work, I even bought and read the only full-length biography of Shah Abbas then available - it's in French. If people want to submit their articles to GA and FA that's fine with me. What's not fine is disruptive users trying to employ their FA and GA count as a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. --Folantin (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ottava Rima blocked

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Of these, SarekOfVulcan was supportive of my block for creating Bishonen 4 RfC, involved in the MfD, and, when I tried to seek neutral responses to deal with the upsetting claims that I was "hating" another user, he edit warred it close with a claim I was being disruptive [16]. As an involved user in both and seeking my block, he should never have edit warred that close and label me as disruptive, and that goes for Jack Merridew who was on ArbCom probation not to do so and is one of Moreschi's mentees. Although Moreschi tried to claim there was no consensus to reopen the WQA, consensus at AN (before it was moved to the ANI thread and hidden from view) was clear that it should not have been closed like that. Jtrainor and Unitanode made upsetting claims that I was doing things out of hate and I sought help and I did not receive anything but edit warring and attacks by many of the people involved here. When Sarek started doing the same thing again here at WQA, I was not happy in the least bit and I stand by that he was not anything close to impartial, especially with the same people there being the same people that attacked me during Bishonen's RfC. WQA is for a non-hostile and neutral environment, which cannot exist in such conditions.

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ottava Rima's CoI

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

I think it's worth noting that Ottava's real life interests include religion (to put it very mildly), and that one of his conflicts was originally about whether to call Orlando furioso a Christian epic. [18] [19] (Later he also defended categorising Ludovico Ariosto as a Catholic poet.) This formulation strikes me as one of Ottava's usual pedantries. I don't know whether Ottava sees Catholicism as a CoI area, but per the duck test it appears to be one. Perhaps Ottava is really trying not to cross the line in topics related to Catholicism. Perhaps that's why the argument got side-tracked to the fruitless romance/romantic question rather early. But this proposed statement would be misleading, not just irrelevant. Hans Adler 10:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Ottava Rima's language

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ottava Rima outed

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

What? I don't recall mentioning your name on Wikipedia and I have no interest in who you are in real life. On the other hand back in August you were claiming everybody knew your name: "Unlike you, I actually make my gender known, along with my real name" [20] and "my name has been mentioned quite often here and on sites related to Wikipedia. My real name has been connected to this account since day one, as with my jobs and a lot of my real life information." [21]--Folantin (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Ottava has discussed his column on-wiki before: [22]. He's also disclosed his university, the fact that he's a grad student, and various other pieces of personal information. As far as I know, he's not disclosed his real name, but he has said that his real identity is widely known: [23]. (And note that last diff is from a discussion about this attempt to discover what university another editor attends; you'll pardon me if I find OR's complaints about "outing" a bit hollow.) --Akhilleus (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"And you can claim that I am not a scholar all you want. However, my real name is known and easy to find. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)" [25]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting use of the word "clearly". Original context: [26] Hans Adler 23:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Ottava Rima's independent mindedness

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Moreschi's and Folantin's history of collaboration

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Ottava Rima's time and effort

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

Ottava Rima's block history

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Persian Empire page

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Block consensus

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per parsing of evidence [27]. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

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

Harassment of Ottava Rima

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Proposed remedies

Moreschi desysopped

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

=Moreschi topic banned

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

=Folantin topic banned

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

RegentsPark admonished

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

SarekOfVulcan desysopped

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Jack Merridew blocked

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Fowler&fowler topic banned

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence and statements by Fowler above. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Elen of the Roads

Proposed principals

No-one is right all the time

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Ottava Rima has difficulty resolving situations arising from his misapprehensions

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

I had a dispute with Ottava that began with him repeatedly misreading "there is no requirement that usernames be in English" as its opposite. [28] It did not end after I pointed out that he had misread it. It ended, of course, with Ottava accusing me of being bent on destroying Wikipedia with my race-warrior agenda and threatening to have ArbCom desysop me. rspεεr (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Apologies, you are quite right. It was Pederasty that you claim you were forced to edit war on [29] Response to Carcharoth....The only way I was able to keep from being blocked from Nandesuka's block is because two members of that group had me edit war against Haiduc on various pages dealing with Pederasty. (sorry, can't post proper diff. Manning Bartlett cut and pasted the page content, and I'm not clever enough to figure where he c&P'd it from). I presume you mean here and forwards. Interesting - same pattern. I assume your conflating of pederasty and paedophilia was deliberate, and prompted by Nandesuka, but you make a mistake here (Plutarch was of course Greek, and wrote in Greek - anyone studying him in Latin is looking at a translation). Your response immediately goes on the offensive Same thing where you are completely wrong, and same excuses for you trying to not have to accept it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Tznkai

Proposed principles

Community sanction discussions should run their course

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

Uninvolved versus involved

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Admin discretion

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Nature of consensus

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Common sense and community sanctions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Unilateral actions

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed remedies

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

A model topic ban

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

A model behavior restriction

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A model interaction ban

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A model discretionary sanction provision (area)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

A model discretionary sanction provision (editor)

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

A model anti-baiting discretionary sanction provision

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Proposed enforcement

Model enforcement provision

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Proposals by User:The_ed17

Proposed findings of fact

Ottava Rima's content work

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Chillum

Proposed principles

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Personal attacks result in damage to neutrality

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

- Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: