The following request for comments is closed. Consensus is that Ottava Rima's behavior should be handled individually by each project on a case by case basis and that currently, only being blocked on two projects does not rise to the level to justify a global ban. Tiptoetytalk 08:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Opening request and additional summaries of evidence
This is a request for a global ban of User:Ottava Rima. I'll keep it concise, you all know him. The user has currently zero content contribution to Wikimedia projects and instead contributes a huge lot of harassment and other disruption.
Carefully informed: countless herds of editors, sysop etc. of the Wikimedia projects have invested time trying to educate Ottava Rima to a civil and productive interaction. Multiple blocks have been discussed, applied, lifted, re-applied etc. in an endless series.
Banned: the user has been banned and indefinitely blocked since a few years ago on the English Wikipedia by their ArbCom and no revision is to be expected ; he is also indef-blocked on Commons (with unanimous support) after a January 2012 indef-block has been restored for blatantly disrespecting unblock reasons . His reaction to this has only been to continue his habit to question the mental ability of others to understand English, policies, their own words etc. The English Wikipedia was the only project where he had content contributions, if I remember correctly.
Continued risk: now that he is blocked on Commons we can expect to migrate his disruption to another project as he always does. His activity is focused on few wikis but has broad targets and never stops except for dishonest acknowledgements of mistakes to get unblocked, which he later rescinds. All those who disagree with him are either criminals, or abusers, or people with mental deficiencies.
Example reasons for ban
Really, there are so many that I'll just use the examples from the policies.
Harassment: Done, he's a real specialist. He is assisted by several off-platforms and cliques; his activity on our wikis is instrumental to facilitate external attacks against the Wikimedia projects, often focusing on harassment and personal attack of the most involved editors.
Identity theft: perhaps not literally, but he is a specialist of misrepresenting the other editors' words both for the purposes of derailing discussions and for harassing and damaging them in all possible venues when they disagree with him on some dispute.
I was the person who initiated the most recent ban discussion at Commons, and you can read my initial comment at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Ottava Rima (let's try and not let this one get derailed). However, I would recommend more that you read the replies Ottava made at that thread. Ottava was banned in January 2012, indefinitely, then unbanned again in May the same year. He has made a total of 3 useful edits since, the rest are all about creating drama and bad feeling. He has shown the same pattern over and over, and I do not believe he is fit to continue as a wikimedia user.
Note that I was linked to this, and did not come across it on my own. Nor am I a regular meta user. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The ban request with little actual justification is still open, which Nemo bis and Mattbuck both know. Mattbuck admits that he was canvassed, and he was part of IRC canvassing on the Commons ban proposal, which has been verified by multiple independent parties. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Ottava Rima claimed in a very prominent location (in the opening statement of a desysop request, of Rd232) that Rd232 had "voted" on an RFA where he had merely commented in the discussion section. Ottava Rima later amended the RFA without an edit summary after Rd232 pointed it out on his talk page. Ottava Rima's initial response, however, was an aggressive statement implying that Rd232 had challenged a different (though related) claim, that he had been "involved".
The exchange at commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_24#Rd232 relating to Ottava Rima's repeated failure to understand the difference between a principle (threshold of originality for copyright protection) established in general terms in statute, and a specific workable definition. No amount of clarification of the difference (see the Rd232 statements with added formatting) helps. This is made worse by the fact that the very same issue was at the core of the collapsed "unhelpful drama" part of commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_24#User:Takabeg. This began (just above the collapsed section) with Ottava Rima (not unreasonably) asking for proof that the principle existed in Turkish law. Rd232 in response had said "I provided evidence in two DRs that the TOO concept exists in Turkish law." Ottava Rima's responseswere extraordinarily aggressive in the circumstances, and were followed up within 45 minutes by a new section at COM:ANU about Rd232 . Ottava Rima's responses also included the statement "Prove" is not factual., implying a quotation of Rd232, which was not the case, and highlighted Ottava Rima's ignoring the difference between "evidence" and "proof".
In response to Rd232's comment about an image unambiguously being a "representation" of masturbation (i.e. regardless of whether it showed a real or a simulated act", Ottava Rima responded  by comprehensively missing the point, complaining that it could not be proven the act was real. Despite the fact that the subject was not identifiable (as commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people requires, being Commons' version of WMF's BLP resolution), Ottava insisted that there were "BLP" issues. (, "Some problems" thread)
In response to this request to "relax a bit" and the observation "you're crossing a line in attacking people and calling into question their good faith.", Ottava Rima says "Your attempt to claim that I am some how not mellow while not having any clue about me is an actual personal attack, and your false accusation on my talk page is furthermore such." Yet, Ottava Rima had made comments like "I'm baffled by this comment by Saibo and I find it 100% impossible to assume good faith." 
"Your hostility on my talk page in the form of false "kindness" or "politeness" is just an example that you are pushing absurdities in an attack way that is highly inappropriate." 
If Ottava Rima publicly and clearly promises to focus on content in the future while not engaging in controversial discussions (unless expected), I am inclined to strike my support here. Under no circumstances, I want to discuss about my opinion or the points above at Commons. In case you feel it is really necessary to debate about them, please keep it on Meta.
While each single point mentioned would be not issue for itself, the entirety of them is disruption (This is my personal feeling). -- Rillke (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Mindboggingly wrong headed, in fact. Ceoil (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I avoid joking at serious matters like that. Disruption is a personal impression. However, I only have the time and experience to judge about your behaviour at Commons. It would be impudent for me to talk about other projects because I lack experience there. I spent 8 hours reading your posts -- at the end, I did learn nearly nothing. That's disappointing and not in line with the project goal creating a free educational media collection. -- Rillke (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
You said I deserved to be banned because I had a personal opinion that complex signatures are potentially copyrightable! It doesn't matter if you learned anything from me - what matters if following policy, abiding by our standards, and acting appropriately. It is obvious that this was done out of process, that the block on Commons was done out of process, and that there was a major abuse of power that led to Russavia being de-cratted and who knows what else. Commons has a problem with corruption, and your attempts to point out things from 2011 that you consider wrong only verify that you aren't the best judge of right and wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
You said I deserved to be banned because I had a personal opinion that complex signatures are potentially copyrightable! No and no. Please re-read. I wrote something about the sum of all points... Now you just picked one. The issue is that your personal opinion of copyright is irrelevant (as long as it is unproven and) because the case was treated under another legislation than you commented about and I doubt you were able to read the underlying document, which is written in a language you do very likely not understand. Not having the required knowledge and commenting anyway is disruption if this happens repeatedly and in controversial debates on which you unambiguously prefer to comment on. You are maybe right that there are issues at Commons but this has nothing to do with the points listed above. Please stay on-topic.
Disrespectful? No. Your post was disrespectful. You put up things that were completely inappropriate to put up. I'm not the only one who felt that way. It is obvious that there is no basis for this and yet you put up even more nonsense. Why do you think your behavior is appropriate? Might does not equal right, and tools are not to be used to bully other people. Yet here you are misconstruing policy, attacking me for legitimate opinions, and being utterly incivil. You were wrong, especially about the signature issue, and you think that you can some how support those who also use the block button to hide from being wrong? That isn't a good attitude to have. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
You've misinterpreted MDS's comment. I restored the above vote to correct the record. Angel54 is not a sockpuppet, or really a sockpuppeteer even on de:wp; they simply kept creating new accounts under the same name after being blocked. They never had multiple accounts weighing in on a discussion. None of this has been an issue on Meta, and Angel54 contributes constructively here; I know of no reason not to welcome their participation in any public vote or discussion. –SJtalk 17:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
No continued risk, only trolls in English and is already blocked in both en-projects he is/was interested in. Syrcro (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It is simply false to say "the user has demonstrated a permanent pattern of severe disruption in all the projects he has been active in" — he has never disrupted Wikiquote, nor Wikisource, for example. Local wikis can deal with these alleged "disruptions" locally and independently, thanks very much. There is no basis for a global ban. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Be wary about making big definitive statements, OR does not have that unblemished record at enWS. You should check log records, not contribution records for local blocks. — billinghurstsDrewth 13:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Dan Polansky (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Almost no evidence presented; almost no diffs showing the allegged objectionable behavior were provided. The nominator seems to have a rather confused idea of "identity theft", as in his "Identity theft: perhaps not literally, but he is a specialist of misrepresenting the other editors' words ...". From Special:CentralAuth/Ottava_Rima, it is clear that the user was banned on two projects: commons.wikimedia.org, en.wikipedia.org. FYI, I am mainly an English Wiktionary contributor. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose and unfortunately see what appears to be a personal conflict now aimed at a global ban of an editor whose faults are duly noted. No need for this - thus "oppose" Collect (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflict.) Oppose While he has undoubtedly been disruptive on Commons, and I support a ban on Commons, I think a global ban is simply not necessary - those communities that think he's disruptive there can always impose sanctions on him locally, but that's for those communities to handle; there is no reason for those where he does or might potentially do good work to be deprived of his contributions. darkweasel94 (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose because global sanction of this sort aren't meant for this kind of situation. They're more meant for global copyright infringers, global vandals, etc., whom we can trust to start causing problems immediately upon arriving somewhere. Someone with a history of interpersonal problems, such as Ottava Rima, will be unable to cause problems immediately upon arriving, since you can't have interpersonal problems with someone whom you don't know; he'll only be able to arrive somewhere and begin contributing content initially before causing problems, if that ever end up happening. On top of that, someone with a long-established username who consistently edits under that username (as opposed to socking) will either edit in a way acceptable to a local wiki or will edit in a way that will attract that wiki's sanctions quite clearly — I've never seen anything that suggests Ottava Rima has been devious, deceptive, etc. Let each project deal with his problems or accept his help. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per DanielTom and Nyttend. — Racconish Tk 12:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. User should be blocked on all projects only (s)he adopts the same behaviour on several languages versions, which is not the case since (s)he mainly behaves so in English language Wikimedia projects. Jagwargrrr... 13:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
While banned on two large projects, Ottava Rima is still welcome to contribute on other projects where they've been active, including Wikisource (although DanielTom seems to have missed ). I'm not seeing enough to warrant a global ban here. Jafeluv (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Weak oppose. The abuse has been big, but blocking should be local in each case. --Alan(talk) 13:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The user has been active on multiple projects. He has made more than a thousand edits to four projects: English Wikipedia, English Wikiversity, Meta and Commons. He is only blocked on two of them: Wikipedia and Commons. Looking at the block log, he has been blocked in the past on both Wikiversity and Meta, but he is not blocked for the moment. I can only assume that this means that Meta and Wikiversity do not find his behaviour problematic. I think that a requirement for a global ban should be evidence that the user's recent behaviour is disruptive on at least Wikiversity and Meta, and also a good explanation as to why he isn't blocked on those projects for the moment. Until such evidence has been presented, I find no reason to support this request for comment. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose While he is an absolute PITA at times (IMNSHO) that is not sufficient to be the subject of a global ban, especially as that is able to be managed by individual communities. That said, I do wish that he concentrated on positive additions as he could be an effective and positive contributor, rather than what I consider negative sniping, but what the heck. — billinghurstsDrewth 13:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: no abuse on fr.wikipedia.org. And I don't want to say anything about what possibly happens on en.wikipedia.org, except that English language wikipedians are allowed to block this user only on en.wikipedia.org, without comments of other language communities. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 14:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Global bans are not really meant for this situation. Whilst I can certainly understand the sentiment, we should be careful not to use our processes for things which they are not truly intended for. Russavia (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. This latest round originates from a coordinated Commons-IRC campaign where user Mattbuck canvassed some of his friends to help him get Ottava blocked there. That block itself is controversial and being currently reevaluated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I am certainly no fan of Ottava and was pleased when he was banned from en.WP, but as others have stated this is simply not what global bans are for. This would set a dangerous precedent and is just a bad idea all around. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose in the strongest possible terms. As somebody who has known Ottava for over 6 years and collaborated with him on featured content on en. Unwarranted, disrespectful, and malignly intended. Ceoil (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Nur drei Beiträge in de rechtfertigen keine globale Sperre. --G. Hampel (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Weak oppose, it is a problem for WP EN (and commons), not for all projects. Hatonjan (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose individual communities can handle this; no reason for considering a global ban at this time. --O (谈 • висчвын) 16:16, 24 August 2013 (GMT)
Oppose No doubts at all about his block here - but I don't think the global ban process should be used for such a case. --Momotaro (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Does not seem to be a case for a global ban. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose He may warrant a global block in future if he disrupts another project, but this is not warranted now.--KTo288 (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The stated reasons seem to be very vague and very utilitarian, based on subjective impressions rather than on real disruption. Ban should not be misused in such personal conflicts. --ŠJů (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Beeblebrox(!). Ottava Rima has been reasonable in our limited interactions. He has been victimized by a WMF staffperson who vandalized his user page, according to English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, so why pile on? Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Ottava is already having the appropriate actions being taken indefinitely blocked at Commons. I tried to help at Commons, but it failed. With that, I will Support if it continues on other WMF projects besides the English Wikipedia and Commons. WorldTraveller101 (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Appropriate actions? No. Many people have already pointed out that Mattbuck acted abusively, that A.Savin acted abusively, and that the whole thing was an abuse of process, of canvassing, and of our policies here. You still fail to recognize that. Why do you persist in claiming that very clear corruption is fine?Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Struck the above Ottava Rima, as it implied that I agreed with it. I agreed to an indefinite block at Commons, not a global ban. I will say in Ottava's defense that certain actions by mattbuck, especially at IRC were not the wisest decisions ever made. Now, can we please close this ridiculous request for comment, as this is never going to gain traction. WorldTraveller101 (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course - Hasn't Nemo bis and the supporters caused enough shame and embarrassment? Dirty tactics aren't appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose while echoing comments above. Global bans don't exist to get rid of users that you don't like. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: a solution in search of a problem. Any project that does not want Ottava to edit there can ask him to leave; I see no reason to deprive projects who do want him to edit there the right to keep him around if they wish to do so. 28bytes (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. I find the opposition presentations more convincing than the support arguments. Ched (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. I havent even talked to you for a few years, but you've always been helpful to me when I needed you to find a paper source or delete a copyvio lurking on Wikiversity. Unless you've suddenly turned entirely evil in the last 3 years I'd be against any ban, especially one that overrules the decisions other wikis make. Soap (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Les problèmes de en.wp ne concernent que en.wp. Ljubinka (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Per AFBorchert: there is no ground for a global ban. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Nyttend. — Scott • talk 22:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per AFBorchert and many others. --Avenue (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose should be handled in local basis. Note that my opposition against the global ban proposal does not mean the vindication for OR. – Kwj2772 (msg) 07:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose—situation as presented does not meet the criteria for a global ban. Specifically no evidence is presented of a pattern of cross-wiki abuse. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Pile-on oppose per the first half of Nyttend, Stefan4, and Beeswaxcandle. There is no indication that local communities can't handle this. Importantly, there is no evidence of cross-wiki abuse, merely evidence of abuse internal to several wikis where OR is an established (as opposed to transient) user. Finally, if he is editing constructively - or at least not disruptively - on any projects, this very fact seems to indicate that a global ban would be inappropriate. – PhilosopherLet us reason together. 02:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose What I see easily justifies the two permanent blocks, on en.wp and Commons. But I do not (yet) see an ongoing cross-wiki problem with this user. --Martina Nolte (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose-He's smart and smart enough to add and contribute in any number of positive ways...Modernist (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Nyttend. - ʈucoxn\talk 01:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Though I have found Ottava Rima troubling and at times upsetting due to the hostility of his argumentative behaviour on-wiki, I have never had him attempt to invade my privacy nor misrepresent himself. In particular I would not classify his behaviour as deliberate personal harassment, intentional cyberbullying nor anything unlawful (under UK or US law). --Fæ (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Fæ. I also haven't seen him actively harass anybody, and he doesn't actually seem to be very popular on that one off-wiki forum, from what I've read there. darkweasel94 (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
There is that evidence, though it was of a person now subject to a global ban, it probably should be treated as an exception, annotated, but not produced as diffs as damning evidence. — billinghurstsDrewth 14:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I was indef blocked after one hour without consensus and with a growing consensus that the admin involved were being abusive. Nemo bis knows better and knows that this is harassment. I think the only legitimate response is to block Nemo bis for trolling. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you please stop asking for people to be blocked? Now that Nemo bis lost his sysop rights, Nemo bis is harmless. He can't block people anymore without obtaining consensus first, and he's currently failing in his attempt to gain consensus. Take a step back. There isn't a need to block anyone. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
So blatant lies, canvassing to try and get me banned, and starting this process when he clearly knows that it isn't appropriate should have no response? Really? Why? Because that will some how make him stop abusing others? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about? There was no "difference of opinion." I pointed out a statement and Eric threatened to block me for differing from his opinion that was extremely problematic. If you can't see how Eric was trying to abuse his privileges above to silence others, then that is baffling. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘ Comment The whole ideas with any block or ban is preventative not punitive. It is very rare that a user should be banned from one place for being blocked, banned, or having sanctions in another place. Ottava wasn't globally banned or locked when he was banned from English Wikipedia. I'd personally like to see this RfC closed ASAP, as discussed on here, I found it to be a pretty unwise and poorly thought out filing for an RfC. If there is a crat or steward that is willing to close it as no chance of passing, then that would be appreciated. At this point, it's just wasting people's time and breath. Thanks. WorldTraveller101 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
wtf, he would be first able, to excuse himself for his behaviour? Would be a step. But as u can see above, he remains in the same attitude - the people who are against his opinions should be blocked indef as a consequence of his own stubborn actions...--Angel54 5 (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Opinions? This is about admin privileges being used to harass other people. There is no question that on Commons, Mattbuck violated multiple policies to close a deletion discussion and abused IRC to try and get me blocked as punishment for being challenged. There is no question as to this being an extremely clear case of admin abuse and attempts at reprisal. The Wikis do not allow such conduct to take place. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion is being neutrally notified to the user and communities in all wikis he has edited, as per policy. --Nemo 10:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
To fully comply with the appropriate notification requirement established by the policy, the next step could be a message on the user talk of any and all users who ever wrote on one of his talk pages or have an edit by him on their. Objections? Volunteers to compile the list? --Nemo 11:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
This global ban request clearly isn't going to succeed, so such a widespread broadcast would be excessive. WereSpielChequers (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
He already spammed my email over a dozen times and many talk pages before there was any certification that he met the conditions, so the harassment (which was his intention) has already been committed. It is wonderful what people working in an IRC room together can come up with to cause others harm. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)