Stephen Bain (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 150: | Line 150: | ||
:''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.'' |
:''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.'' |
||
=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/ |
=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/2/0/1) === |
||
*'''Decline''', try RFC first. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 21:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Decline''', try RFC first. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 21:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
*Awaiting further statements. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC) |
*Awaiting further statements. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Accept''' while I would normally say "try RFC or Mediation first", in this particular case I have to agree with SoWhy. I also have a strong suspicion that there is more going on here that we are seeing near the surface of these choppy waves. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 02:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Accept''' while I would normally say "try RFC or Mediation first", in this particular case I have to agree with SoWhy. I also have a strong suspicion that there is more going on here that we are seeing near the surface of these choppy waves. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 02:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
*Reject. The problem seems to be a lack of engagement by the administrator corps and the community at large with respect to handling this matter in the venues in which it arose, and I do not see why proceeding to arbitration should be the default course of action in such situations. Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process, not the lazy step. --[[User:Stephen Bain|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Stephen Bain|talk]]) 11:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
Revision as of 11:42, 9 November 2009
Requests for arbitration
Appeal of an Unjust Topic-Ban
Initiated by HistoricWarrior007 (talk) at 09:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Involved parties
- HistoricWarrior007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Confirmation:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Ban_Appeal_Notification
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFuture_Perfect_at_Sunrise&action=historysubmit&diff=324814626&oldid=324814546
No attempts at Dispute Resolution were tried. I was unjustly banned based on a case I didn't even know existed. Here's FutPerf's reason for the topic-ban:
HistoricWarrior, with this edit I feel you have crossed a line. You (and others) were warned some weeks ago that the permanent hostility and edit-warring on that article would not be tolerated forever. For the aggressive "ownership" attitude, hostility, threats and personal attacks expressed in this latest posting of yours, in connection with the months-long history of near-permanent edit-warring on the same article, you are now topic-banned from the 2008 South Ossetia War article, all articles related to it, and all related talk pages, for a period of two months. This topic ban will be logged at the Arbcom enforcement section of WP:DIGWUREN. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by HistoricWarrior007
FutPerf accuses me of (1) ownership of the article; (2) edit-warring and hostility; (3) threats;
(1) Ownership: I have encouraged everyone to use the discussion page prior to editing, as is required by the article’s "controversial" template. I have discussed all of my edits, prior to making them. When a new user made an edit that I didn’t agree with, I reverted it, and asked him to use the talkpage; after the discussion, his arguments were better than mine, and he made the edit. There is a ton of material in the article that I disagree with in the article, but sometimes I win the discussion and they go, and sometimes I lose the discussion and they stay. And if anyone still thinks that I “own” the article, I volunteer for a 4 month long 1RR restriction in that article.
(2) Edit-Warring and hostility: as was previously pointed out to FutPerf, what was occurring in the article was not edit-warring but vandalism, and reverts of said vandalism. Despite 6 users pointing this out to FutPerf, all of whom are knowledgeable, long-term editors of the article, with a 2-4 pro-Georgian - pro-Russian split, FutPerf ignored our combined statements, and proceeded to claim edit-warring where none existed. Proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring.
(3) Threats: I challenge FutPerf to find a single threat that I made. Here is what FutPerf believes is a threat: "I am tired of you using these tactics. I won't hesitate to expose anymore of these tactics, the minute I see them. So don't use them." On the other hand FutPerf has been accused of making threats in our article, as is shown in the link above.
FutPerf claims that I was warned, in the above listed link and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Question_to_Arbcom:_2008_South_Ossetia_War However, in the latter link, ArbCom completely ignored FutPerf’s request; when a Court ignores a request, the status quo prevails, and no warning occurs.
I also fail to see why I am being punished per WP:DIGWUREN, considering that I had no knowledge of WP:DIGWUREN. FutPerf states that it applies to all Eastern European Articles, but FutPerf failed to mention it in both of his "warnings".
The edit that I am being topic-banned for can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2008_South_Ossetia_war&action=historysubmit&diff=324541357&oldid=324532032 Granted, it wasn’t my brightest move, and the joke at the end was in poor taste. Nevertheless, in my defense, the edit involved the title debates, which occupy, literally, over 100 pages; it’s where every point was argued and counter-argued at least several times.
It is also interesting to note that FurPerf topic-banned me shortly after I presented evidence for ArbCom, and that he made the "warning" in the article, shortly after FeelSunny and I spoke out in the ArbCom case, regarding the Cabal.
To summarize, I am being banned for something I did not do, by an administrator who is hostile towards me, using a policy I never heard of. I have no history of prior bans/blocks/warnings. Thus, I am appealing.
Statement by completely uninvolved Collect
This case offers a place where ArbCom can lay down specific limits on how individual adminisyrators adjudicate cases on their own. This might include length limits, and limits as to the precise nature of restrictions placed by administrators which appear, in many cases, to be far greater than ArbCom allows to be imposed in cases decided by ArbCom. This might also include precise definitions of "broad support" (such as whether a fairly even split can be determined to be "broad support" for administrative action) for blocks and bans to preclude any unjust or rash actions by administrators. This might also include rulings on the nature of inter-administrator communication concerning topic bans and effective topic bans where such communications are not made public in any way. And this is a far less messy case than others which might have been declined by ArbCom in the past. With such possibilities for definitive action by ArbCom, I think this case ought be taken up, Collect (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)
Hounding of Tothwolf
Initiated by Jehochman Talk at 13:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
- JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Miami33139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Theserialcomma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Tothwolf flaming out while announcing retirement
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Continued wikistalking/wikihounding and harassment
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#Wikistalking_and_problematic_edits_by_User:Miami33139
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive564#Questionable_bulk_edits_by_User:Miami33139
Statement by Jehochman
While patrolling WP:ANI I stumbled across a complex multi-party dispute that has been festering for over a month. Tothwolf claims hounding, collusion and malicious deletion nominations by JBSupreme, Theserialcomma and Miami33139. Those parties claim Tothwolf is "delusional" (Miami33139's words). There appears to be intense rancor on all sides with regrettably breaches of decorum by at least two of the involved parties. If you read the linked discussions, you'll notice the paucity of uninvolved editors willing to brave the long screeds and flames. I believe arbitration would help resolve this problem. The parties need structure, and they need uninvolved parties willing to closely review a substantial body of evidence spanning multiple articles and multiple editors. We do not have any other process that would provide suitable resolution. ANI cannot repel drama of this magnitude. Jehochman Talk 14:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- @Spartaz: The parties chose not to engage in formal dispute resolution. Instead, they kept going to ANI, and their comments were so combative, no uninvolved parties want to get caught in the crossfire. RFC is good for disputes involving a single editor, but it cannot effectively handle a dispute where multiple editors are behaving badly. I do not think RFC could help at this point. It does not make sense to start four redundant RFC's that focus on the same events and patterns of behavior. It will be more efficient to hear a single arbitration case. Jehochman Talk 16:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Jéské Couriano
I will not say anything on this matter aside from this - Theserialcomma and Tothwolf have a history stretching back a few months; I've tried to amass enough diffs in a timely enough fashion for Tothwolf to use in any RFC/U, but after Theserialcomma butted into discussions I was having with a blocked user, I was obliged to try and disengage. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 14:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Miami33139
ArbCom does not need to hear this.
Jehochman brings this to ArbCom with a statement that there is no other process that can handle drama of this magnitude. On the contrary, this is not drama of high magnitude. This boils down to a simple case of ownership. In the AN/Incident yesterday I repeatedly asked Tothwolf, or any adminstrator, how one specific diff of a minor edit presented a case of harassment by myself of Tothwolf. After ten repeats of this one question, Tothwolf responded, showing he had made three minor edits to the article in question, eight months before, and in a different section of the list. He did not back down from his claim that these minor edits, on different sections, eight months apart, were harassing him. This is a ridiculous claim on its face.
ArbCom could break this entire incident up into that response from Tothwolf to understand this issue. Wikipedia does have processes that can deal with ownership and false claims of harassment, and that is for any administrator to actually act when they see such obvious displays. Bringing this case to ArbCom will certainly become drama of high magnitude, because there are a dozen more claimants to be heard where Tothwolf has screamed "HARASSMENT!" A simple glance at his talk page shows a years worth of complaints of his etiquette from many editors.
Tothwolf has shown that he believes minor edits separated by eight months are harassment of him. An ArbCom case where he will bring forth hundreds of such diffs, claiming they all harass him, will frustrate everyone to no end. These claims are ridiculous. Send this back to the administrators and tell one of them to figure out how minor edits separated by eight months harass anyone, and tell them to make an appropriate response based on their judgement. Miami33139 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Reply to SoWhy and Elen of Roads
- The necessity of blocking the lot of us would require at least some finding that each person did something wrong. Here is your chance. Review the diff below. If there is a credible rationale that the diff below harasses Tothwolf, I will leave the project. I have not commented at, towards, or in reply to Tothwolf in over a month. I have studiously avoided him. Other than followup to pre-existing discussions (where I still avoided any potential showing of conflict with him), I have not touched the precious set articles where he claims ownership. He still claims I am harassing him. His claims are preposterous. This does not require ArbCom attention at all. He says the diff below is part of my harassment. Show the harassment at that diff and I will leave Wikipedia. I want no part of a project so ridiculous that eight months between minor edits on different sections can be harassment. Miami33139 (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- The Diff that can settle the whole thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_portable_software&diff=prev&oldid=324167183
If any Arbitrator can show me how that diff harasses Tothwolf I will leave the project. No need to open the case. If there is no explanation of how that diff harasses Tothwolf, you know what kind of non-evidence you will get if you open the case. Miami33139 (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by theserialcomma
Reply to Jeske Couriano: i've asked jeske couriano repeatedly to leave me alone. his responses have been some of the following: "slot off, fragface. You are not the victim under any circumstance, TSC" and "chummer, shut the frag up", "i am on your ass" "i am 100% disgusted by your behavior towards me", tothwolf is innocent, go after Theserialcomma, i will block you and seek a ban against you for harassing tothwolf. these are just some of the things jeske has said to me, always in relation to tothwolf. i know they collude on irc, and jeske's harassing me to help out his irc friend (tothwolf). but his behavior towards me is atrocious and completely unbecoming of an admin. everything jeske says to me is vile, and he's insistent on harassing me. tothwolf's failure to assume good faith and canvassing IRC are obvious. see User:Mikaey/Tothwolf for an admin's take on this. This deleted page, by the way, is why jeske went to Mikaey's page to tell him 'Theserialcomma is tothwolf's agent provocateur. if you are going after tothwolf, you should go after TSC instead'. Mikaey's response was that Most of the stuff I documented predates their interactions. . Later on at a WQA, Mikaey went on to write FWIW, Tothwolf does have a history of crying "wolf" whenever anyone does something to an article that he doesn't like. If he has ever touched the article, it suddenly turns into "wikihounding", when those users had no such intentions. I think Tothwolf has thrown the words "wikistalking" and "wikihounding" around more than anyone else I've come across on WP. Tothwolf always manages to avoid any sort of rebuff for his actions, because he always manages to paint the user he is after as the bad guy. This instance is just another in a chain of continued behavior which I find completely unhelpful and inappropriate for a Wikipedia user. Honestly, it needs to stop. Yesterday.
- here is another gem where jeske goes out of his way to harass me. another editor had a semi attack subpage about me, which i nominated for deletion. jeske suddenly showed up, out of nowhere, having no business on that AFD, just to vote 'keep' on an attack page about me. Can someone tell this guy to stay away from me? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:McJeff/BlockLog
Question by uninvolved Spartaz
Has it now become a tradition to skip the RFC and go straight to arbitration these days? Seems to be a worrying recent trend & is not for the good. Spartaz Humbug! 15:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved Elen of the Roads
I have seen every one of those go by at ANI and concur that the ANI noticeboard was entirely unsuited as a venue to untangling the mess. My perception is that the root cause is a different view of the importance/notability of a class of topics, and the problem has mushroomed because all the editors have preferred to make things personal, rather than hold discussions with the possibility of a compromise view. Given this, and given all of the editors outright refusal to engage in any form of DR, I would have thought the other option available is to block all of them until such time as they agree to (a) stop accusing each other of the seven deadly sins and (b) agree to some form of mediation regarding the topic group. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved SoWhy
The ANI reports demonstrates two reasons why arbitration is the most reasonable next step:
- The users named by the filing party have demonstrated repeatedly that they are completely unwilling to consider that they might be incorrect. While RFC has not been tried here, we already know that those editors are unwilling to reflect on their conduct voluntarily from their comments in both ANI reports.
- The community has demonstrated their lack of willingness to resolve the situation in those ANI reports as well and there is no reason to believe that they will act different if an RFC is attempted. The first ANI report was even taken to its own subpage where it was left and ignored afterwards. I tried to raise the matter again but no one commented further. The second ANI report demonstrates an equal lack of willingness to handle the situation.
For those reasons, I think RFC, while not tried before, would be unproductive in this special case since it requires a certain level of willingness to communicate with the opposite parties and to reflect on one's behavior. I cannot see such a willingness to exist in this case no matter how much good faith I am willing to assume, so I would urge ArbCom to take this case to resolve this conflict which the community demonstrated to be unable to resolve. Regards SoWhy 22:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Tothwolf
Each of the three editors (Theserialcomma, Miami33139, JBsupreme) have a history of harassing and "hounding" other editors and I've unfortunately become their latest target.
Theserialcomma has been party to a number of AN/I discussions and has previously been blocked due to baiting and their behaviour. They also have a history of abusing COI/N and SPI and making false allegations towards others.
Miami33139's last target was User:Ed Fitzgerald, who finally left Wikipedia due to constant hounding. Miami33139 tended to follow Ed Fitzgerald to remove his edits (since Ed Fitzgerald left, Miami33139 continues bulk remove large numbers of his edits).
JBsupreme has a very long history of making personal attacks towards others, especially in his edit summaries. These often contain vulgar language in all caps and have earned him a number of warnings from administrators and other editors.
On an individual basis, each of these editors has embarked on a campaign of wikihounding. It seems as though they are doing this as a form of "retribution" due to my work on other articles at AfD and for tagging prodded articles for the WP:COMP deletion workflow.
Within approximately the last two months, these three editors began engaging in collusion and meatpuppetry. This has taken place both with articles I've edited that they've AfD'd, as well as other articles that they would individually nominate for deletion. They've also used these same tactics against editors involved in other AfD discussions.
Between about September 25th and October 1st they began a campaign of mass AfD/XfD nominations in what appears to have been an attempt to draw the focus off the larger issue at AN/I, which by in large worked as the behavioural issue discussion was derailed. Many other editors at the time also felt their behaviour was harmful to the project. This is largely detailed on AN/I here.
I feel as though I've tried pretty much everything else possible to resolve this situation short of either leaving the project (such as what User:Ed Fitzgerald did and something I've been considering) or having ArbCom review this issue. I've tried taking this to AN/I without resolution and individual administrators have mostly suggested I collect diffs and document things. I really feel as though the community has failed me and left me out in the cold with no way to defend myself against the harassment from these three individuals. I will admit that dealing with these three editors has at times been rather stressful and at times I've made some comments I wouldn't have likely made otherwise, but by in large I've attempted to deal with each encounter without making things worse.
While I personally feel these editors' contribs and the diff links provided in the AN/I discussions above make this an easy WP:DUCK case, I understand that others who have not witnessed these behaviours first hand may not be able to see the issue in the same way without first having spent a considerable amount of time reviewing contribs and diffs.
--Tothwolf (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
I'm technically inactive and I haven't looked at this request, but despite this, I want to note 2 things that may be relevant. (1) It is difficult to conduct a community discussion due to the fashion in which Tothwolf structures some of his comments. Regardless of the outcome of this request, can someone please please PLEASE teach/tell/make Tothwolf to habitually sign directly after his comment and get out of the habit of putting a signature 2 lines later? It's possibly fine during a statement, but it's impossibly distracting (and off-putting) during threaded discussions, be it at AN, ANI or talk pages, and there's only so much I'm ready to do in formatting at such discussions. (2) See Sept. ANI - particularly section 1.8.1 onwards. The discussion did not reach a conclusion as users kept bringing up more things later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/2/0/1)
- Decline, try RFC first. Wizardman 21:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Awaiting further statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Accept while I would normally say "try RFC or Mediation first", in this particular case I have to agree with SoWhy. I also have a strong suspicion that there is more going on here that we are seeing near the surface of these choppy waves. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Reject. The problem seems to be a lack of engagement by the administrator corps and the community at large with respect to handling this matter in the venues in which it arose, and I do not see why proceeding to arbitration should be the default course of action in such situations. Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process, not the lazy step. --bainer (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Ottava Rima restrictions
Initiated by Ottava Rima (talk) at 04:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- RegentsPark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Jehochman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- [3]: "With the proviso of course that the editor in question can still appeal directly to the community (if they feel the "point of contact" is obstructing them) or direct to ArbCom (who will, I believe, hear appeals against restrictions that both they and the community hand down)" Carcharoth (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2008
- [4]
- [5] (the whole thread)
Statement by Ottava Rima
I am appealing my editing restriction via what Carcharoth has described. I am appealing on the grounds of inappropriate actions in the closing and determining of these. 13:09, 25 September 2009, User:Jehochman adds my name to the editing restriction list.
He cites this discussion in which he is involved. He does not cite the full discussion as seen here, which reveals that three people opposed it NuclearWarfare, Durova, and ChildofMidnight express direct statements that it was out of process and only two expressed direct support. There was no consensus to allow it.
After Jehochman started telling people that I was under restrictions, it was revealed that he put them up himself. This thread was started because of 1. lack of consensus on the matter and 2. he did not follow as what Carcharoth earlier states was part of the editing restriction: "could we have some discussion of whether the person logging the restriction here could be the person (hopefully an 'uninvolved' admin) that both assesses consensus at the community discussion, closes that discussion, and records the restriction at a user subpage (if needed) and on the user's talk page?". Not only was there no assessment of consensus, there wasn't even a true proposal.
I asked on the talk page for it to be closed. Ncmvocalist said it was not an appropriate forum, even though it was stated it was not supposed to be there and Jehochman even said "The list is a convenient index; nothing more. Any editor in good standing can fix what is written here if it is not correct." at Jehochman Talk 00:30, 17 August 2008 on that same page. Ncmvocalist knew this, but also knew that there was disputes at ANI and even made threats regarding it (". Again, would you like me to spell out what will happen if you continue to be disruptive by keeping this discussion here?" Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2009). I informed them that I asked Carcharoth to explain what he stated before at this thread. Before he could, an ANI discussion was opened.
RegentsPark closes the discussion as passing. He cites "22 supports, 8 opposes". He previous posted multiple times expressing opinions: [6], [7], [8], and [9]. It was also pointed out on his talk page by myself that the actual tally was not 22 to 8 (73%) but 18 to 14 (53%). This is a far different gap than what he claimed existed.
I am asking that this sanction be lifted as out of process and that the actions of the two admin in determining their sanctions be investigated in their 1. involvement with the issue as a whole and 2. inappropriate use of determining consensus in such restrictions.
- Response to John Vandenburg - As I have stated here, it is harassing to be under such constant scrutiny, attacks, and the rest. I am not someone who has had a lengthy ArbCom which has determined that I should be under such. This is purely one quick decision following a few days of constantly creating threads on me that were filled with invectives and attacks by the same people. Restrictions like this are emotionally damaging. If you want to get rid of someone, get rid of them. Don't keep them around and play games with them. I am a human being. I have flesh, I have blood, and I have feelings. These "restrictions" are exactly what people have been doing for a while - constantly warning me on this or that, items the vast majority of the community would not even think were close to incivility in order, to put pressure on me and have a negative impact. I have managed to create 70 DYK, 29 GA, and roughly 8 (it hasnt closed but is close) FAs in a three month period where I was constantly threatened with blocks or received blocks. My talk page is constantly filled with the same people making claims over what can only be trivial matters. I have watched my language carefully, and it is obvious that people would instantly block me if I said even the slightest thing that was obviously incivil or a blatant attack. If I made this section I would have been blocked for at least a week. I can't edit under these circumstances as I have emailed ArbCom for the past three months about. The pressure from the same group of people to bully me into submission is unbearable. Either free me from these people and allow me to actually put my time and thoughts into writing without having to worry about the same group trying to bully me in some new way, or get rid of me completely so I don't have to bother with any of it. Anything in between is impossible to work with because it is an endorsement of the same behavior that seeks to ignore arguments or matters and instead focus on me. Allow me to be as productive as my potential has proven I can be, or make it clear that I can't benefit this place and get rid of me. I have already stated here that if any Arbitrator feels that I do not belong here, please say so. I will go. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Questions for RegentsPark - 1. What do you think about the discrepancy between 22 to 8 as you state and the 18 to 14 as I have pointed out at your talk page? 2. Do you feel that you were able to adequately close the page while a. having put forth your view already and affected the debate and b. had a previous dispute with me just prior to this matter? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Response to Jbmurray - I don't think a full case is needed or normal for this. It would just go to motions on the matter where ArbCom can simply uphold the stuff as official, not uphold it, or impose whatever else. But if someone wants a full case then I'm sure they will do it too. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Question to ArbCom - is it a coincidence that Folantin, Moreschi, Dbachmann, and Akhilleus kept appearing in various debates and Moreschi accuses me of disruption there? I would welcome such examination because there are three admin that have participated in outright attacks, disruption, POV pushing, threats, tag teaming, and the rest. Moreschi and his friends have done this for a very long time and they will continue to do something until 1. ArbCom desysops all of them for abusing adminship and 2. Puts forth tough restrictions that result in blocks if they ever do anything that appears to be tag teaming in the future. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Response to Carcharoth - I don't cuss, but many responding to me do. I don't call people stupid, but many people responding to me too. I don't ask for the same people to show up to countless pages and have my "back", but many people responding to me do. I have supported those who have caused me harm before, and have defended people like Mattisse or Peter Damian who have never done a positive thing for me, yet many people who respond to me have never went against one of their friends. I do not use socks, yet there is a blatant history of those against me using socks. I don't follow people to multiple pages, keep making tendentious attacks on minor matters without willing to listen or compromise simply to say that they have had a "history" of such actions which, if someone bothered, they would see the history is artificial. This is a common tactic against me. I deal with actions here, and I only make statements regarding the propriety or impropriety of those actions. I have worked on DYK, GA, and FAs with over a dozen people who are -not- my friends and who have completely different views from me, yet the people against me only work with those who agree with them and try to snuff out any opposition. After being targeted by the same people, as you can see on this DRV from April 16, 2008 on Swift's printers many who are present here and present in most of these discussions, for over a year, constantly being harassed, bullied, intimidated, and blocked by those in their circle, I was -still- capable of producing about 10 FAs, saving two FAs directly, putting up over 50 GAs, and having now 210 DYK. I was still able to produce 61 DYK, 8 FAs, and 27 GAs in a three month period in which there was either a WQA, an ANI, or some other form of harassment against me with the intent to get rid of me. Why is that? Because I fight through the pain, the harassment, the emotional harm because I believe in this damn encyclopedia. If I acted like this I would have been banned. Yet that group of people just because they are Moreschi's friends and they have Risker on ArbCom think they own this place. That thread makes me sick, and yet they didn't even have anyone willing to warn them. When I complained about one of John Vandenburg's mentees edit warring against me when I tried to follow a WQA alert about a group of people accusing me of "hating" another person, I asked John to intervene because the individual was on direct ArbCom restriction not to do -any- edit warring. This was one of Moreschi's mentees. What was John's response? That since the guy once did something on Wiki Source for me I shouldn't pursue the matter. Is that how things are done around here? An Arbitrator I once considered a friend tells me that someone clearly breaking the rules and causing me emotional stress shouldn't have anything pursued against them because they once helped me? That absolutely sickens me. I don't stalk people across various topics. I don't bust into multiple WQA and edit war or attack. I don't follow them constantly to ANI and gang up. I don't tag team, bully, or any of this. I don't tell people that it is appropriate to ignore clearly disruptive and emotionally damage behavior because they once did something for another person. If the community wants to ban me, fine. But there is only one thing the community can do if it wants to make up for the pure shit I've had to go through since last April. I was constantly intimidated, constantly harassed, berated, abused, sent threatening emails and had some of the most horrible and blatant hate on Wiki without even one person warning the individual. The only way I was able to keep from being blocked from Nandesuka's block is because two members of that group had me edit war against Haiduc on various pages dealing with Pederasty. I did their bidding only because I was tired of the constant blocks and harassment, and it made me sick. I worked with him to get Nicolo Giraud to FA to make up for the hell I aided. I am tired of this all. Either fix the corruption and protect me, or get rid of me once and for all. You want to blame me for this, Carcharoth, fine. Blame me. Get rid of me. The problems will continue, as there are dozens of editors that suffered from these same people in the same way, and there always will be. I fought through all the bullshit and managed to put forth good work. I could have produced at least 4 times the amount I had if I didn't have to constantly fight against this. You have brought me to cussing on Wikipedia, which I am strongly against. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- And I am sorry if the above is extremely hostile or combative. Your comments have extremely upset me and I can't even finish fixing "Ode on a Grecian Urn" which is at FAC because I don't want to be around here right now because of what you stated.
Statement by Jehochman
When I show leniency toward an editor, it often seems to bite me in the ass. In this case I gave Ottava a mild civility restriction instead of a block. If you take this case, please investigate the underlying dispute, Ottava's behavior and what to do about it. The community has been incapable of ending the drama, to date. Ottava claims to have been harassed and hounded. I believe these counter claims should be looked at to see if they might be mitigating factors. Bad behavior by one side does not excuse bad behavior by another party, but it should not be ignored. Before my action there were blocks followed by unilateral unblocks. I tried to fashion a sensible remedy for an obvious problem; I personally abhor the idea of blocking a constructive editor such as Ottava.
ANI is a poor venue for thoughtful discussion of serious matters. The community sanctions policy and process needs an overhaul. However, you cannot legislate these matters. Policy is for the community to decide. I've started a relevant discussion here should you wish to participate as individual editors. Jehochman Talk 09:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am happy to remove Ottava's name from the list to avoid stigmatization if he observes site standards for one month. Thank you for the suggestion. If anybody has issues with Ottava's behavior, please notify me as a courtesy. If I am online I'd like to be consulted before any non-emergency block might be placed. It is my goal to help Ottava, not to set him up for failure. Jehochman Talk 02:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll get off the fence. I think this situation will improve if you give Ottava a bit of time and space. Immediate arbitration is not going to end well. He's had feedback and indicated some things to me privately that give hope that the matter could be resolved. If Ottava returns and problems resume, you can take up the matter. Meanwhile, I would implore all the disputants to stop applying pressure. There is no need. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ottava Rima is a redlink. A passel of ANI threads is not real dispute resolution. It's wikiwarfare.Jehochman Talk 02:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Durova
It looks like RegentsPark misassessed the preferences. At least five editors either expressed preference for the alternate or specifically opposed the initial version, while only three expressed preference for the initial version. Without venturing an opinion about whether either proposal achieved enough majority to constitute consensus, it appears quite clear that if either sanction did it was not the initial version.
Listing within a collapsed section for clarity (and feedback in case I've miscounted or misread).
Preferences of discussion participants between the two proposed versions
|
---|
|
It would be problematic to refer the matter back to the community. An aspect of the recent underlying dispute is of a sensitive nature.
There are at least two issues worthy of ArbCom attention: review of a closure which appears flawed and which the community is unlikely to reassess effectively, and review of whether a lone administrator may impose sanctions by personal initiative outside the context of arbitration enforcement. One or more named parties has expressed additional grievances which they may wish to raise within arbitration.
Some of the discussion at ANI sank to a level that does not reflect well on any of the participants. So respectfully requesting that (whatever each of us thinks or says in private) the onsite comments here please express a basic courtesy. Durova355 06:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding SarekofVulcan's followup:
- The comparison in this section examines only the individuals who expressed a preference between the two proposals. Other editors also supported and opposed without preference between the two versions. Durova355 15:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
To John Vandenberg:
- One problem with that solution is that it implicitly validates an arguably invalid sanction, another is that neither proposed sanction is likely to succeed. Yes, we should all be civil. Look at the ANI thread and see what took place there:
- "Would all of you kindly shut the fuck up, please?... " (not posted by Ottava)
- "Start an RfC, or get off the pot" with the edit summary "or shit, or whatever" Further commentary: "I find it absolutely ridiculous that Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Ottava Rima remains a redlink while there are apparently so many people willing to bitch about him ad infinitum. WTF is the issue?" (posted by a steward)
- "Yes Ottava, and 'all of you' that that 'shut the fuck up' was directed at included you too." (not posted by Ottava)
- The only one of those individuals who received feedback that perhaps that wording wasn't the best manner of expression was the steward, by me, at his user talk page.[10] And no, this is not an effort to exonerate Ottava. But it isn't viable to wait a month and then send an appeal while this simmers. It's been boiling over to admin pages about twice a week. Whatever else Ottava Rima does--and he isn't perfect--he doesn't sink to vulgarity. The situation is difficult already; it becomes even harder this way.
- Ottava Rima crossed a bright line when he broadcast questions which could impact another Wikipedian's employability. There are ways of raising concerns about a fellow editor's conduct on sensitive matters, and I really don't approve of Ottava's course of action there. Now that it's been broadcast and said, it comes up again--not necessarily by Ottava. An arbitration case could manage that with adequate ground rules and clerking; the community can't contain that problem.
- The best outcome would keep Ottava Rima free to contribute outstanding content and give him a measure of dignity--which the above vulgarities lack; he's a human being--while truncating the associated problems. Neither of the proposed solutions is likely to solve that because--and we've all seen this play out--the people who are at loggerheads don't want endless brinksmanship; they want to be free of the conflict and return to other priorities. The community debates would likely refocus to whether this snipe or that one crosses the line into blockable behavior. My graduate school training is in writing; Ottava's is in literature: neither of us need vulgar clichés to be cutting. There are different ways to interpret the civility policy. Consensus doesn't exist in this realm.
- Neither of the proposed sanctions was developed as a result of discussion. One administrator tried to impose the first unilaterally, another presented the alternative with what appears to be good intentions and haste. I have an idea for an alternative proposal, which the heated discussions really haven't allowed an opportunity to pose or consider. Am quite worried that if the community handles this the result will be conduct RfC, "failed" civility parole, and siteban. Arbitration may be the only viable alternative. Durova355 19:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Ncmvocalist
- I am not a party to this case for a reason; I have no interest in it beyond that which I would show for any on-wiki dispute that needs to be resolved. That said, I want to clarify some of the facts I dispute in others versions (such as the filing party's).
- My responses to Ottava Rima (Ottava) at Wikipedia_talk:Editing_restrictions#Inappropriate_restriction were: [11] [12] [13]. It is not my problem that Ottava repeatedly lets himself believe that threats exist where there are none - had he answered yes to my question, I would have explained to him where this was inevitably going (aka, here).
- As Ottava failed to take it to ANI, I opened that which was closed by RegentsPark - notably, the only comment I made at that discussion was the opening one. There was neither any issues in the way I framed it or filed it, nor was there any doubts that I was merely exhausting this step; a formality to complete so that Ottava can, as he preferred, let ArbCom hear an appeal.
Prior interactions and relevant ANIs
|
---|
|
- I am sceptical that an RfC/U will achieve much due to the number of claims (including those of uncivil conduct, administrator impropriety, etc. etc.) and the grudges/battlelines that keep being drawn at any community discussion relating to Ottava. Unfortunately, in this regard, it may be practically impossible for the community to conduct a focused discussion for very long at all on this. That said, I don't think this case can be limited to how each sanction discussion was conducted (and ended), without looking at the underlying conduct concerns, both express and implied, that may have led to the sanction discussions in the first place. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Also, I strongly contend the assertion made by one of the responding parties that ANI is a poor venue for thoughtful discussion of serious matters - the way I framed the most recent discussion, and the way it went for the most part, is ample evidence that ANI is fine when discussions are framed properly. Certain users refusal or uncertainty on how to conduct ANI discussions and impose sanctions does not make that system the problem. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Fowler&fowler
Those who subscribe to the conceit that Ottava Rima contributes reliable and accurate content, are asking, yet again, that a special dispensation be granted for his follies. It is important for ArbCom to assert the primacy of the Wikipedia enterprise and of its rules. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Wikidemon
I am impressed by Wikidemon's cogently argued statement. ArbCom would be wise to pay close heed to it. In my view, Ottava Rima has often employed the same stratagems in countering objections to his content contributions as he has in countering those to his incivility. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by RegentsPark
I think it is fairly clear from the discussion that there is community consensus on some sort of civility restriction on Ottava rima even beyond the numbers counted in the !votes. A requirement that an editor be civil and assume good faith on the part of other editors is generally a good idea and enforcing that is not a bad idea if the editor has been uncivil in the past and, of the various suggestions thrown around in the discussion, this one is the least onerous and has the advantage of being a restriction that is already in place. In this case, I think I've correctly called consensus and suggest that if the editor continues to focus on content and attempts to be civil in his dealings with others, there should be nothing to worry about.
I have had very few interactions with Ottava rima himself, the most recent one being on the Byron talk page. While I was surprised at the tone and tenor of his statements in that discussion, at no point did I feel that it was necessary to take the matter further or consider a block or ban (Ottava expressed the desire to take it further but, since he did not, I assume he did not consider the matter particularly serious either). I do feel that rudeness is detrimental to the goals of a collaborative volunteer project and that is the only way in which I consider myself to be involved in this issue. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist has asked me to explain why I chose the original sanction over the alternative plan. The 'support difference' between the two was slight and the original plan was already in place and a great deal simpler. The alternative plan has clear support as well, but it is both more complicated as well as more punitive. Since there was clear consensus that there be some restrictions placed on Ottava, and since the original plan both has 'expressed support' and is as well the absolute minimum restriction that can be placed on an editor, I concluded that it has consensus support. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Response to questions from Ottava rima I counted straight down, ignoring comments (unless they clearly stated a preference) in the Original thread section whereas your numbers include interpretations (for example, I would not have included the three editors who seem to be throwing up their hands at 'the whole mess' in the oppose section) across the entire thread. My views were expressed in purely general terms (I have nothing for or against you and, somewhat like you, feel that the community should either ban you or just agree to put up with you) so I see nothing wrong in my closing the thread. By 'previous dispute' I assume you refer to the Byron article naming dispute. I'm not sure why a purely content dispute, particularly a one-off thing that neither of us considered serious enough to take further, should preclude an editor from closing a thread of this sort. We would never get anything done if that were the case.
Regardless of the counting of 'votes', I would (if I were you and I do realize that I'm not you!) focus on the general opinion that your tone is less than civil. Civility is largely a social construct - what passes for polite conversation amongst a group of stevedores would scarcely pass muster at a gathering of the lords and ladies of the court - so one has to take cues on what is polite from other members of a particular society. You can see what sort of message you're getting. Durova reminds us (above) that there is a human being behind the virtual Ottava, and I urge you to bear in mind that the people you communicate with are also human, with the same need for a 'measure of dignity' that you have. (My apologies for this digression, which is doubtless both uncalled for as well as unwelcome, but I can assure you that I mean well.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Elen of the Roads
Debate is the lifeblood of Wikipedia. I believe a significant component of Ottava Rima's incivility is that he rapidly goes from academic disagreement (which while it can be extremely heated is at least based on an examination of the evidence and/or interpretation that the other party is putting forward) to accusations of bad faith, disruption, conspiracy, socking etc, which it is hard to interpret in any light other than a personal attack, and which quickly either stifles debate or turns it into wikidramah. A very good, recent, and uncontroversial example (a discussion as to whether to rename the article about the poet Byron to Lord Byron)isTalk:George_Gordon_Byron,_6th_Baron_Byron#Requested_move. I would recommend anyone interested to read it. The section is quite short.
Suggestions about the move were initially met by Ottava with sound academic and policy based responses [17][18][19] and so on for about half a dozen responses. Other parties joined the discussion, and one eventually placed a formal support for the proposal at hand [20]. At this point, Ottava Rima's behaviour changed. His next post [21] makes the first accusation of bad faith "If you are going to play these games, don't do it with someone who is an expert." (By way of background, both have carried out a search of the academic database JSTOR, and are reporting different results - as it later transpired, from the use of somewhat different search parameters)
When the editor addressed protests[22] that this is "Bit, unnecessary, and rather uncalled for,"the next response from Ottava is a full on attack [23] "I straightforwardly proved that you were spreading blatant falsehoods." The person to whom this is addressed posts a lengthy reasoning [24] and Ottava's response again contains accusations of bad faith editing [25] "stop the nonsense. Your comments are filled with 100% incorrect information."
The discussion continues in a civil manner, with views on both sides. Another editor who disagrees with Ottava is met with [26] "Your persistence is the very definition of tenditious and incivil" (this is the editor's second post in the debate), followed by "Your arguments are so incredibly wrong that you must know that they have no basis and is further proof of your intentional disruption"
The first editor makes another point, and suggests "I know you've done good work on poetry articles here on wikipedia, but, I think, your familiarity with the subject is causing you to lose perspective here." This is met with [27] "your pursuit is against the MoS, against standards, and against logic. You already crossed WP:CIVIL and NPA attacks above. Does an AN or ANI need to be brought about because of your indecent actions?"
A third editor who has dared to disagree with Ottava suggests "our naming conventions are not predicated on what libraries call people". This unremarkable observation is greeted by Ottava with [28] "You should honestly be blocked for that because that can be nothing but trolling."
A different editor (not any of the three already referred to) asks Ottava to tone it down. [29]. Ottava's response so exemplifies the issue that it is worth reading in full. Bear in mind that up to this point this has been an academic debate, with possible sources advanced, and no-one has done any more than (a) disagree academically and (b) asked a couple of times that Ottava turn it down a bit, as he's not helping the debate.
I'm going too far? You are the one starting this whole nonsense. You have no legitimate argument and you pushed absurdities. The two above should honestly have known better then to encourage your disruption. You have contributed nothing but disruption. Once it was mentioned that the LoC classifies him as George Gordon Byron, you should have apologized for starting this. The other two should never have bothered. That is enough to warrant a week long block against all three of you because you have proven that you are not here to contribute. It seems like a block would be the only way to protect the encyclopedia by those who don't actually care what the real classifications are or how people actually use them.
I submit that it is this cycle that it most disruptive to the encyclopaedia, and this which needs to be addressed. Debate is the lifeblood of Wikipedia. Ottava has been reminded to AGF with those who debate with him, and it is not unreasonable to reinforce this with administrative action should he start accusing academic opponents of lying, disruption, trolling, socking; or make threats to report them should they continue to debate a point.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by LessHeard vanU
I urge the Committee to accept this case without delay, so that the disruption evident on WP:ANI and on various editors talkpages may be diminished and the concerns raised - and the responses - can be reviewed without interference or influence. I would further request that an injunction be placed upon Ottava Rima upon acceptance of this Request that he limits himself to interacting with editors only on these pages, that he may only bring up one incident or instance with an editor once, that he evidences any rebuttal, that he comments only upon actions and not purported motives, mindsets, "cabals" or otherwise upon the characters of other parties. I would further request the injunction to disallow Ottava from commenting at the Admin noticeboards or on the talkpages of other participants of this case, or otherwise contacting them. In short, an injunction requiring Ottava to respond only on these pages, and only specifically in response to any one point - once.
I would comment that it was my intention to block Ottava Rima indefinitely for disruption, and Bad faith assumptions against those whose viewpoints he does not agree with, having concluded that he was continuing the behaviour recently expressed at ANI and on various editors talkpages. If this case is not accepted, I shall continue to review Ottava Rima's conduct in the light of JHochman's restrictions and my understanding of policy and will block (indefinitely, agreeing only that it should be lifted in the light of credible undertakings by Ottava to moderate his conduct) should I consider he is abusing the goodwill and collegiate atmosphere of the community. As I have some history of disagreement with Ottava I am certain he will declare me an "involved party" and thus incapable of acting in regard with him, and as I do not think it relevant there will likely be even more disruption resulting from my potential action. Under the circumstances, it would be best if this matter was accepted sooner rather than later. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment in response to those by Carcharoth
I would like to note that I did not make my comments in order to exert extraordinary pressure in having a case accepted; I was intending to be honest in how I perceived the situation to be, that I had decided upon a block (and I use indefinite as a nuanced tariff, because it can be lifted as soon as its purpose is served) to diminish the continuing disruption, and that I stayed my actions because there was an RfAR initiated by OR which served the purpose better - if accepted. I also commented that if the Request was refused I would continue to review OR's - subsequent (for I try to be a fair beast) - interactions with editors in dispute resolution and sanction if I deemed necessary, with an honest realisation that the block itself might prove to be catalyst for an ArbCom Request for the reason given above. I would not care to give the impression that I will block OR should this request be declined for any reason other than further violation of project guideline or restrictions; I would much prefer that a defining of expected behaviour and practices on the part of all parties (including myself if considered appropriate) be made so OR can write articles alongside other editors and disruption contained. My comments were in no way intended as holding a gun to anyones head. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by SarekOfVulcan
Elen has a good summary of the current issues above. When the Lord Byron discussion was taken to WP:WQA, I attempted to engage Ottava there, indicating that he might be personalizing the debate too much. When he complained I was defending inappropriate remarks, I listed 16 comments of his, including "You've heard of a library before, right?", "You have no legitimate argument and you pushed absurdities", and "Do you even do anything around here worth while". His response was that "Those comments are not incivil and it would take a complete rewrite of WP:CIVIL and a complete bastardization of common English to make a claim to the contrary." At that point, I blocked him for a week, since I believed that he was unable to work within Wikipedia civility norms at that point, and cited that diff. Ottava's initial unblock request was declined by Chillum, but a second one caused Deacon of Pndapetzim to reduce it to time served with a note that "Abrasiveness was mild".
Durova's summary above focuses on those who expressed differences between the preferences - for convenience, here's a summary of the whole discussion.
List as I sees it
|
---|
|
--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Response to Sandstein
However, RegentsPark determined here that there was now indeed consensus for the original sanctions, per the new discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Just added that link to WP:RESTRICT, for reference purposes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment in view of Ottava's GBCW
- I would urge that the committee take a long hard look at his assertions. If problems are truly running as deep as he asserts, it's incumbent upon us to fix them, and an Arb case involving all concerned is the best way to fix them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Excirial
First and foremost i would like to split this issue between Ottava as an article writer, and ottava as a debater. Seeing article writer Ottava i cannot do anything else but admire his/her determination for improving the content on Wikipedia. It is this kind of determination that improves the new and average class article's we have to featured status. As i have said time after time, and now yet again, this part of Ottava does warrant nothing but the highest praise, regardless of mans stance on the other side of the ottavian coin.
However, debater Ottava seems to be an entirely different story. Debater Ottava will persistently maintain his/her stance throughout a debate apparently without listening to any arguments other editors make. Moreover seemingly every argument disagreeing with him/her is immediately turned down as a personal attack - down to threats with reports ranging from ANI to arbcom.
To highlight this i would like to focus on two cases, though unfortunately many more exist. The first is his\her response sequence to RsX very early during the debate [30]. After Ottava asked her first question RxS responded saying "What a rediculous question". Is this helpful? Not really, but immediately stating "but your statement is uncivil" is not helpful either. i argued before that simply asking "Why do you deem it ridiculous?" would have requested an explanation from RxS, while at the same time being less aggressive. Instead the next two responses in this thread by Ottava are onliners that are a warning and a threat with an ANI report respectively.
This happens often. I compiled a Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive574#Ottava_Rima_user_conduct list of these issues during the earlier ANI debate to demonstrate the incredible ease at which Ottava uses the terms "Personal Attack" "Warnings" and "Reports" early or immediately into a discussion, resulting in a negative tone. The response to this was ottava claiming that i made a personal attack against him/her and that i should remove my accusations unless i provided diffs - of which 15 were added. While inquiring after this in the second ANI threat Ottava claimed "At no time did those diffs show any incivil comment or attacks of any sort. This was explained to you and you kept going on. You have yet to provide anything". The only one disagreeing with me on those diffs was Ottava, with two other editors supporting my conclusions. Similary "Just kept going and going" is equally false, as i made just 1 comment in that entire threat - the initial one. In other words it would appear that Ottava denies any form of criticism on the sole basis of not agreeing with it himself / herself.
Personally i would conclude that this entire situation will prove only negative in the long run. Potentially losing an editor with Ottava's qualities as a writer is a grievous loss, but at the same time we cannot have an editor more or less driving away other editors as happened to chillum, judging on the ANI thread claims, some more editors. For me the only issue that lies at the core of virtually everything said against Ottava's is the aggressiveness and ease with which (s)he makes threats to other editors while denying any form of liability herself - actually even stating that any evidence prevented violates civility guidelines. Just leaving out the words "Warning" "You violate WP:NPA" and "(X) report) early into a discussion could change things for the better.
Finally, i deem the current community sanction as little more then a WP:CIVIL guideline rehash; Its function seems to be little more then a globally recorded UW-NPA warning, which should prove to be little to no hindrance with positive conduct. I can see no community disagreement as 20 voted support and 7 voted against. Ottava's counting of 14 oppose is essentially flawed. For example HalfShadow is counted as an oppose for stating "Would all of you kindly shut the fuck up, please?" - yet this comment was related due to the excessive amount of space the RFA discussion was taking. Protonk and SMC are counted similarly. Tarc is counted as an oppose, yet he clearly voted Support either. Finally i would like to note that 5 of the 7 oppose votes i counted stated that "It should be dealt with trough civility guidelines, rather then a separate rule" - Thus not being an oppose a sanction, but rather opposing the means. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 14:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Unannounced statement by Mitchazenia
Well, this was a thing I kind of have seen coming. The restrictions that have been placed (or supposedly to be placed) are mostly a good thing for the future sense of the encyclopedia, as I do not see a community site ban as a good thing for the community. Its like sending a manic depressant to Rahway State Prison. Anyway, I would believe ArbCom would be a good place to take this, but if the decision is to return it to the community, I would be willing to go ahead and do (if it happens), be the appointed mentor for Ottava Rima. I am not usually comfortable talking to ArbCom in this matter, but if it means keeping a valued contributor to the site, I am willing to go for it, whatever restraints there may be. Anyway, just my statement, but having a lot of previous interactions, I should leave my input.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 14:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Sjakkalle
About a month ago, I blocked Ottava Rima due to pestering User:Bishonen with a meritless user conduct AFD (the straw which broke the camel's back was recreating the RFC after it was deleted). The block was overturned in a matter of hours since the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Ottava Rima Bishonen and Risker ended with no consensus (roughly 50% support for and against the block). The problems of pestering, and dragging out a dispute have not ended, the latest one being the campaign against User:Chillum, dragged out on Jimbo Wales' talkpage.
There has been far too much of this behavior. If Ottava Rima is not under a valid civility restriction, then I would urge the ArbCom to at least impose one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by SandyGeorgia
My thoughts on this case are recorded here. I would like to see consistency in ArbCom deliberations and proposed solutions, considering there are other similar and even more difficult cases "brewing" through lower levels of dispute resolution. With respect to Ottava, I will point out that, in addition to his very high level of FA contributions, he has been the only editor-- on several occasions-- to identify important points in a FAC; at times his tenacious character can be quite beneficial, and I note that previous ArbCom decisions have allowed "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith" to continue in a case where another editor makes good contributions at a level lower than Ottava's. Like Ottava, that editor sometimes identified key issues in a FAC and frequently appeared at ANI; unlike Ottava, that editor sockpuppeted twice, has never written an FA or a GA, fails to AGF, and targets other editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Amended. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Since it looks like this case may be accepted, as part of reviewing the "standards and procedures for imposing community sanctions" and that "the community handle(s) this sort of thing poorly", I hope ArbCom will consider what can be done about the culture at AN/I, to make it more productive. Why is drama fed and escalated by some of the very editors to whom we trust the tools, when simple, polite answers can stop it? If admins are enforcing "civility", shouldn't they also be following it? Why is Ottava able to carry on in a friendly manner with other top content producers, even when they disagree? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Response to Fowler & fowler
Re: "Those who subscribe to the conceit that Ottava Rima contributes reliable and accurate content, are asking, yet again, that a special dispensation be granted for his follies", that door was opened by ArbCom itself. Did you object to a "special dispensation" in that case? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Update
Proposed changes to AN, AN/I and RFC/U are being discussed and implemented; this may help break some of the logjams in the dispute resolution process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Request
Will the arbs please try to recognize that the kinds of comments that Carcharoth makes on cases tend to make him appear impartial, which is very upsetting to people enduring an Arb case? They come here, expecting a full and fair hearing of all evidence before conclusions are drawn and what sounds like warnings are issued. There seems to be misunderstanding of what "arbitration" is about; please, Carcharoth, learn to make more impartial statements here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Response to Folantin
Having recently become aware of some of the mistaken assumptions surrounding Ottava's real-life identity, and how those mistaken assumptions may have contributed to the hounding of Ottava, I don't find your use of the word "paranoid" accurate. I won't repeat those mistaken assumptions here, as they aren't worthy of further exposure. I find the language in your latest post unnecessarily inflammatory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Response to Wikidemon
I concur with some-- not all-- of Wikdemon's latest post. My feedback in this case is based upon at least four similar cases, some still brewing through lower levels of the dispute resolution pipeline, and the need for consistency in deliberation and decisions regarding editors who make good contributions. ArbCom rendered an ineffective decision in a similar case that will come back to bite them in the butt in at least three other potential cases. I submit that there is one simple difference between the decision rendered in a past case, and the other three cases I'm aware of: the Wikipedia pillar of
Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.
If ArbCom allows editors who consistently fail to AGF and engage in pointy targeting of other editors and processes, even if at only a low-level of irritation that chases off many other good FA writers and reviewers, how will ArbCom decide these other cases, where the editors do truly act in good faith? You, ArbCom, have opened a door that, to my knowledge, was never opened before; now you must decide how to live with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Folantin
Compare and contrast: Ottava Rima's philosophy of editing (formerly his mentorship guidelines) versus his actual behaviour on Wikipedia.
Extracts from the "list of guidelines that I [i.e. Ottava] have committed myself towards":
- On conflict: "In order to avoid WP:CIVIL problems and to work on WP:Consensus, I shall seek to avoid conflict whenever possible. Instead of judging others, I should focus on issues [...] I should seek to be a peacemaker, and not an instigator. I should keep my mouth shut and open up my ears more often. - Ottava Rima"
- On consensus: "In order to avoid unnecessary conflicts and fights, I will explain my position shortly and not argue with others if they disagree. If they ask questions, I shall respond politely and not judge the questioner. I should seek to be inclusion and not exclusive, and consensus involves everyone and not a majority that overruns a minority. - Ottava Rima"
- On discussion: "In order to stay neutral and refrain from committing personal attacks, I shall speak politely, not judge other people's words harshly, assume good faith, and believe that everyone can and wants to contribute to a discussion. I shall try to keep an open ear and an open mind, and realize that my perspective is only my own, and that I should be willing to listen to others. - Ottava Rima"
- On talk page discussion: "In order to avoid WP:CIVIL issues, I will no longer refer to any rule violation and will not refer to any of the guidelines in a manner that calls into question another user's actions. I shall instead seek to discuss issues in a non-hostile manner and desire compromise without putting others on the defensive. - Ottava Rima"
Now Ottava seems to be complaining that he might be forced to follow his own editing philosophy.
Update
Well, it looks as though Ottava has "left" Wikipedia, at least until tomorrow ("I am gone. I don't know when I will be back, but it wont be tonight"). Once he's milked the sympathy vote on his talk page and shows his face again I'm perfectly prepared to examine his paranoid fantasies if necessary, although I'm not sure I've really grasped them [31]. I find the allegation the fuss over the Persian Empire page has something to do with Geogre's desysopping (an event I was barely aware of) quite bizarre. I mean, I've been editing Iranian history articles since before Ottava appeared on Wikipedia so maybe when I revised the Iranian content on the "18th century" page it had something to do with that (I had no idea it was even on Ottava's watchlist; had I known, I would almost certainly have avoided it). But according to Ottava Rima, after Geogre's "desysopping I [i.e. Ottava] went from being someone they [the cabal] would leave alone and occassionally drop a small bit of support to protect in political fights back to the pariah I was. Shortly after: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=18th_century&offset=20090822111219&action=history ". So he's implying some sort of connection there. Or maybe he's just covering up his own stalking of me...--Folantin (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have no idea what Sandy is talking about and she has declined to explain herself further so I'll just let my "inflammatory" defence of myself stand. --Folantin (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Recommendation by Sandstein
Recommendation withdrawn per SarekOfVulcan's clarification
|
---|
I recommend that the Commitee decline to hear this appeal against the civility restriction imposed by Jehochman for the two following reasons:
|
Thanks, Sarek, for the link to the second discussion. So this seems to be a validly imposed, if a bit pointless (per John Vandenberg below) community restriction. Because it remains redundant to existing policy, it's probably not worth an ArbCom case to discuss on the merits. Sandstein 17:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment from Rationalist
I stumbled across Ottava after he removed [32] a pronoun I had placed [33] on an article. (I didn't realise at the time it had been a featured article). I thought the tone of his comments rather abrupt and somewhat too forceful, but on reflection he was quite right to revert some of my edits, e.g. here. [34]. I then had a look at some of the work he has done and it is quite impressive.
I popped round today to say hello and then stumbled across all this. I can't pretend to have followed every detail, but it would be a great shame to lose Ottawa. I strongly agree with Sandy Georgia's comments above. We should not confuse forceful and abrupt and strident criticism with disruption. That's all from me. The Rationalist (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved editor The Four Deuces
I came across Ottava rima in an ANI where editors wished to insert very poorly sourced information about Oscar Wilde. RegentsPark mentioned a dispute where editors wanted to call Byron "Lord Byron". In both cases Ottava rima was correct, not a POV-pusher. It is unfortunate at Wikipedia that good editors can be frustrated by a group of editors who have a fringe POV. All of these issues should be dealt with through normal content dispute resolution. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Jbmurray
Mostly per John Vandenberg and per Folantin. These editing restrictions seem no big deal. They merely enjoin Ottava to follow the code of conduct urged on all editors, and which he himself declares as his goal. The only wrinkle is that Ottava is to have his name on this list for an indefinite period of time which, as he points out, is a form of stigmatization. Why not prescribe a timeframe (one month, six months, I don't mind), after which, if all goes well, the restrictions can silently lapse with little drama or fuss. If there were a place to !vote for that solution, I would happily do so. Given that one of the problems that affects Ottava is the fuss and palaver that surrounds him, I hardly think an Arbcom case helps.
Statement by uninvolved editor The Magnificent Clean-keeper
In response to The Four Deuces": Nobody, absolutely nobody said he is a bad editor. Disagreements at article's talk pages are normal and a daily occurrence. His article editing is not the issue here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Since this case is now likely to be accepted, I concur with user:Chillum's first statement[35].The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk)
- IMO; I see some classic behavior: Ones one feels to be on the "loosing" end of a dispute s/he is trying to tilt it towards an other issue; (Which is NOT the issue here; Maybe a side issue that could (and should be) looked up and brought up separately but not here "as a main point for distraction".) Let's focus on Ottava's behavior which for me started at Jimpo's page (and I really do not care much or at all about his past interference with other editors). If he [Ottava] chooses to stay away so be it. That shouldn't prevent us from discussing his behavior in regards to other editors and neither should it prevent ArbCom to make up their mind and rule. If the editor in question decides to stay away and not defend himself, too bad (for him) but at the end, this is his decision to make.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
statement by Moreschi
For the love of God, please accept. We need to have Ottava's claims of admin meatpuppetry, mass tag-teaming and tool abuse exposed for the nonsense they are. Plus, a proper delving into his disruption at Persian Empire, Orlando Furioso and elsewhere would definitely be helpful as a microcosm of how he operates. Moreschi (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yada yada yada. Apparently I and many others need to desysopped and prevented, on pain of block, from ever meatpuppeting again! Oh dear!
- Come on, how does anyone take this nonsense to be vaguely rational? Moreschi (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Chillum
Please accept this case and investigate all claims of impropriety that Ottava has made, I believe an evidence based investigation will benefit the community. Either these concerns are founded and need scrutiny or the claims are without basis in which case that needs to be exposed. Chillum 21:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Will Beback
This case would be a good opportunity to clarify several issues, including how the civility policies apply to productive editors. That keeps coming up in community discussions of civility blocks. Another issue is non-personal attacks. Is it a violation to say "you're an idiot" but permissible to say "you guys are idiots"? (That same issue extends to topics where there are complaints about tag team - some consider references to a "team", implying coordinated POV pushing, as a personal attack.) Finally, there is the question of deciding when a community ban has been enacted. Will Beback talk 21:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by SB_Johnny
While I wish it was possible to step back a bit and have an RfC before things are brought to the committee level, it's pretty clear that both Ottava and those who are displeased with Ottava share a desire to have a definitive answer to certain questions. With that in mind, I think it would be a good idea for the committee to take this one up... eventually it will have to, and taking it on sooner rather than later will certainly spare the community a modicum or two of ill will that would inevitably come about by waiting until later. --SB_Johnny | talk 22:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Heimstern
If this is accepted, and I rather think it should be, another topic that would be good to visit is accusing others of meatpuppetry. Agreeing with another user frequently does not make the first user the second's meatpuppet, and constant accusations to the contrary are far more disruptive than a few swears, yet we continue to block people for profanity while letting unsubstantiated allegations rain down. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Wikidemon
I urge the committee to be very cautious about taking this case and, if it does, to avoid usurping the community's power to enforce standards of civility without offering something more effective in return, and to avoid Arbcomm's becoming the unwitting tool of an all-too-familiar tactic some sophisticated but contentious editors use to avoid scrutiny: when under pressure, create so much noise and unpleasantness through administrative process that none think it worth their while to deal with them. The issue underlying all the facts is simple. Taking at face value the evidence offered by all, Ottava Rima, a productive content editor, has offended community norms of civil collaboration with other editors by repeatedly insulting and haranguing those he/she disagrees with, to the point that many editors are annoyed and upset. In response OR says they are a pack that is ganging up, and various supporters claim that demands for courtesy are a form of repression or censorship, or double standards. The community, in the form of an administrator's conclusion following a couple AN/I threads, took that all into consideration and laid down a decision, that OR must be more courteous or else they may be blocked temporarily to avoid disruption. Must an editor say "please", "thank you", and "excuse me", or is that a repressive demand for conformity? Has one particular editor crossed the line, and if so what should be done with them? These are community decisions to make, not something to legislate by committee. The administrative process is sluggish and indecisive enough as it is, and is easily derailed as in this case by editors who cry censorship, conspiracy, and accuse the accusers, and like-minded critics who question the ethics of any administrator who dares intervene. If anything we need a system that is less self-reflective and cautious, and more decisive and quick. If every editor whose behavior so upsets people they are asked to stop were to make an Arbcom case against the enforcing admin, we could never enforce civility demands, and admins would be even more reluctant than they are now to do anything.
I say this as one uninvolved (as far as I know) in the latest flap, although I faintly remember being the target of some scorn at some point over a civility request. I am unfamiliar with OR's content edits. I'm aware of this only when disputes in article and talk space spill over into the meta-pages, and from a distance it looks like a bar brawl spilling onto the streets outside. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Update - how quickly I forget! The WP:WQA report here I filed in August illustrates most of the problems Antandrus mentions below. Ottava had disrupted an AfD he himself started outside his field of claimed expertise, wasting many other editors' goodwill and patience in the process. I tried to be resolute as I could to see whether Ottava would acknowledge in any way that he had done anything wrong (hence my firm tone). He was utterly incorrigible, refused to acknowlege that others were upset with him, lashed out and made retaliatory threats and counter-accusations, made improbable claims about having friends in high places, and played games with verb tenses and sentence structure to argue on syntactic grounds that he was not being uncivil. Of note, User:Malleus Fatuorum, a supporter with like-minded views on civility and a similar history of civility clashes, showed up to the WQA to defend him and attack his accusers. The community expressed a hopelessness to do anything about this short of an Arbcom case. So there you have it. It's down to this: will we block or otherwise restrict ostensibly helpful content editors who simply refuse after all warning and notice to be civil? Or do we instead give productive content editors and skilled wikigamers de-facto protected status to violate civility policies because there is no will to take action? I would urge the former, and hope that with a short enough leash and enough civility zaps they will learn by conditioning that their Wikipedia experience works better and their content goals are more readily achieved if they don't insult and threaten other editors. The latter approach sets a bad example: if you permit incivility it snowballs as others learn they can get away with it. The incremental harm by poisoning Wikipedia for dozens or even hundreds of less entrenched editors likely outweighs even the most productive single editor's contributions. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by NuclearWarfare
I broadly agree with Chilum when he said, "Please accept this case and investigate all claims of impropriety that Ottava has made, I believe an evidence based investigation will benefit the community. Either these concerns are founded and need scrutiny or the claims are without basis in which case that needs to be exposed." If the Committee decides to accept the case, I would encourage them to resolve it via case and not by a series of motions. There is evidence that I would like to introduce that wouldn't be appropriate at this time but would be more suited for a /Evidence page, and I would imagine that the same would be the case for others as well. NW (Talk) 20:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Georgewilliamherbert
I think I've said before that I am concerned about factionalization on Wikipedia. Last week, had anyone asked me "So, do you think there's a pattern of people taunting 'the wrong crowd' on ANI?" I would have answered "No". This week, I would answer "Maybe", and that is worrying to me. I am concerned both that a set of people have aligned as a current opposition party on ANI and are not assuming good faith about admins anymore, and that those people are being provoked or taunted in inappropriate ways.
We are in many crucial ways measured by how well we treat the people we disagree with. There has been a tendency for people aligned in opposition to feel persecuted when there was not necessarily much more than a normal reaction to their own actions. But we've had abusive admins, abusive non-admin ANI regulars, etc. When opposition parties and in-crowd regulars treat each other with disdain, when we no longer see admins and regulars AGFing and treating even exceptionally provocative users with respect, then we're losing.
This is neither a blanket indictment of an 'in crowd' nor a statement of support for the cabal-out-to-get-us theories. However - I am concerned that it's gone beyond a couple of incidents into a pattern. It's very difficult to handle patterns like that at the normal administrator or ANI consensus levels. Arbcom should rightly take this up, and consider both if the provocative opposition have been too provocative, and whether they have been subjected to more hostile responses than are reasonable of late. The answers to both questions may well be yes, which will satisfy nobody, but at least will set the stage for corrective actions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Antandrus
Arbitrators, please take this case to look at the behavior of Ottava Rima. We also need to look at the bigger issue of just how we deal with extremely disruptive editors who happen to be good content contributors. Exactly how much extra slack do they get? How should we codify this?
If I had my wish, and super powers, I would give Ottava an "aha!" moment, in which he realizes that he treats other people abominably, and thunderstruck, determines to change his ways, treating them instead with decency, civility, and dignity, as required by Wikipedia policy. A little like Harrison Ford in Regarding Henry, only without the traumatic incident that precedes that hero's epiphany. I am yet to see a single instance where Ottava Rima even recognizes that he is doing anything wrong, and it is precisely this which makes this editor so difficult. If he cannot or will not recognize that he is doing anything wrong, and the community cannot or will not stop his behavior, then the only choice we have is arbitration. Somehow we have to make this stop, because it just keeps getting worse.
With all respect to the fine editors at FAC and WikiCup, I do not think you have any idea what it is like to be on the receiving end of Ottava's abuse, in the other parts of Wikipedia where he is active, and where the vast majority of Wikipedians work. Those who collide with him often wonder what has hit them. It happens again and again. Have a look at this thread in which Ottava bullies, threatens, and generally abuses Alan16 for – incredibly – disagreeing over the placement of an apostrophe. Is it Keats' or Keats's? That's correct: Ottava went to war over an apostrophe. Here he bullies Maunus, now retired, for disagreeing with him. Here he bullies Itsmejudith. Here he bullies Scott MacDonald. Here he bullies Rspeer, using his peculiar interpretation of NPA. In each case he jumps to ad hominems, accusations of inappropriateness and disruption, accusations of trolling, threats of desysopping, and so forth. There are dozens of incidents like this. I have to assume good faith here and presume Ottava's backers just haven't read these threads, and are simply unaware of how utterly abusive Ottava is to editors not in the Featured Stuff, Good Stuff, and DYK areas. I'm involved in this whole business only because I tried several times to intervene and get Ottava's disruptive dramatics to stop, and for my trouble now Ottava considers me part of some conspiracy.
When not editing content, Ottava Rima is the single most disruptive, time-wasting, drama-creating, wikilawyering unsanctioned editor I have encountered in almost six years editing. Please accept this case to look closely at his conduct. There is no way to measure how much of the time of otherwise-productive Wikipedians he siphons off into his dramas. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
- Could some clerk please ask Ottava to cut down on his responses so his statement vaguely complies with the word limit? Moreschi (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Unless directed by an arbitrator, I'm not terribly inclined to do so, since his initial statement is under the word limit and we haven't traditionally enforced the word limit on responses, since Arbitration is peculiar in that we don't permit threaded discussion. I'm open to being overruled by an arbitrator or more experienced clerk, of course, but it's important that the Arbitrators get an idea of what this request entails. Since some of Ottava's responses are to arbitrators or to ArbCom as a whole, I'm disinclined to require he shorten those responses. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/1/0/1)
- If this request to have a case opened, I decline. It is not onerous to be required to avoid edits which are uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. It is what everyone should be doing. Ottava has merely been put on notice. I would accept an appeal after a month or so of peaceful editing. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Accept to review all aspects of the matter, including the standards and procedures for imposing community sanctions as well as Ottava Rima's underlying conduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Change to hold temporarily in light of Ottava Rima's apparent wikibreak announcement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Accept per Newyorkbrad. I don't think that declining the request will fix the situation in a way that provides long term resolution. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Accept. As NYB and FloNight allude to, I don't think giving it to the community will move this any further than it has. Gotta be nipped in the bud. Wizardman 21:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Accept - the community handle this sort of thing poorly. ArbCom don't have a great record either (there are several other editors who make good content contributions but are abrasive when interacting with certain others, and are famed for so-called "special treatment"). However, it looks like it falls to us to try and resolve this. I would make an appeal to Ottava Rima to take a long hard look at your conduct and why it upsets people, and how that sits with your content contributions. I would also urge those who may have unnecessarily escalated some of these issues to ask themselves why they did so, as that may be noted in the case, and if a consistent pattern emerges over several cases of editors who feud with other editors, that will be just as damning. Carcharoth (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ottava, the point I was making is that LessHeard vanU's statement that he intended to block indefinitely swayed me to accept. Part of arbitration is deciding what course of action may be best for the encyclopedia. I don't think highly productive content contributors should be indefinitely blocked without other options being explored first. If an admin says they intend to block indefinitely and urge the case be accepted on that basis, then the situation has, in my opinion, escalated to the stage where ArbCom need to step in and resolve the dispute, to (as the phrase goes) "examine the conduct of all parties". My reference to unnecessary escalation was directed at LessHeard vanU's statement about indefinite blocks (since we obviously don't want a situation to develop where admins state their intention to indefinitely block in order to get cases accepted), and also some other comments made here, such as Moreschi's failure to take this seriously. Sandy, I will respond to your point on your talk page, if you don't mind me moving that point there. Carcharoth (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Accept - the issues here are long overdue for arbitration. Also per NYB. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Accept; this issue has been festering for some time, and the conduct of the parties needs to be examined. — Coren (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Accept per the comments of my colleagues; whether or not Ottava Rima decides to participate in this case, it appears there are sufficient editors on all sides of this question to ensure that appropriate evidence is brought forward on the salient points. Risker (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)