Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following request for comments is closed. Worn out, superseded, outdated discussion. --Nemo 17:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement[edit]

Ottava Rima is a capable but difficult editor. While he has some valid views, his main approach when others disagree includes extreme attacks, disparagement, and unfounded claims. The community to its credit largely ignores these but this has the side effect of encouraging him in the belief that these approaches are valid and encourage the same behavior in future.

This is particularly salient in sensitive discussions such as the present one. Third party non-editors may be expected to read such pages; Ottava's conduct there is close to defamatory and in several cases he makes wild unfounded claims. Guillom had to suppress one such claim made by Ottava. Ottava's response was to accuse Guillom of abuse of tools, post threats on irc, and to claim that he can (or will) use his status to get others banned and has 'got rid' of others in the past (Gmaxwell was his example).

This RFC is not because the present conduct is unbearable - the community has clearly decided it understands Ottava's views and ignores the insults. It's not because his views are worthless, he has some points which are appropriate to make. It is because Ottava responds to many/most criticisms of his approach with disparagement and attacks. This is an ongoing problem, unfair to users, and disruptive to debates. He's been banned on one wiki (ban renewed), moderated on one list, blocked on other wikis.

In short, while I haven't been affected, other contributors and the quality of interaction may have been. The community needs to make clear that this conduct is inappropriate, and Ottava really needs to hear formal views from the community as he seems unable to accept it from any one individual.


Evidence
Past history of sanctions
  • Ottava was banned from enwiki (Nov 2009) for "a spiral of accusations of bad faith", "allegations of a group of meatpuppets who are out to get him" and "accus[ing] others of provocative attacks" [1]. The case found he engaged in bullying, wikistalking, personal attacks, and responded to criticism with unfounded or poorly founded accusations. [2]
  • The appeal decision there (July 2010) noted Ottava was also under editing restrictions at Commons following multiple blocks, and placed on moderation on the Foundation-L mailing list, both for similar behavior.
  • The conclusion on his appeal was that "his apparent inability or unwillingness to recognize and correct the behavior that led to his ban, all indicate that he has not yet come to understand the collaborative nature of this project. His request to be unbanned is denied." [3]

One would hope Ottava had learned from this. Instead on these pages...

  • Accusing others of pushing a fringe view or POV
to Wmt Are you admitting in public now that you operate with a group of others who go to these matters in order to push a fringe POV
to TheDJ TheDJ has a long history of pushing a fringe agenda
to Ocaasi it is nice that you are at least admitting that you are here to further a personal POV
to Seraphimblade (line 384+) it is obvious that you have a fringe POV
to Xeeron It seems like you would rather push a fringe POV
to Alecmconroy Your philosophy would destroy anything credible, which is why it is a fringe POV
to Herostratus You are a POV pusher of a fringe group
  • Making unfounded, or unconsidered statements
We are not here to provide people with their source material for books [4]
[H]undreds of thousands of pornographic images that are only used by a small group of people to wank to each other [5]
Any credible medical textbook or guide only has one or two -drawn- images [6] a made-up claim
[P]enis images are not going to be used on Wikiversity, Wikisource, Wikiquote, or the other sister projects. They are only used on Wikipedia [7]
One image of a penis can be rationalized as education. Any more? No [8];
Controversial, by definition, means that something is either not "truly legal" or not "truly ethical" [9]
To an editor from Holland, You are a POV pusher of a fringe group that is the reason why the Netherlands has constant riots and protests [10]
  • Ad hominem attacks
TheDJ, including accusing others of merely being here to disrupt Wnt;
To a user of 3 years and 3600 edits standing, you have no history or background. From what I can see, you've basically just appeared for this debate [11] Wnt has very few edits on any of the sister projects [12]
To a user with 13,000 edits + sysophood on Commons, and 31,000 edits + sysop on Enwiki, TheDJ... does nothing more than push a few scripts [13]
To an editor from Holland, People of your own country are tired of your anarchist ways and the last refuge you have is an attempt to take over Wiki. [14]
  • "Straw man" arguments
It is odd that you hide your identity [15]
IPs can make up just about anything [16]
  • Threats
stop editing logged out or I will ask for a CU to verify that it is actually you signing as your name on that IP [17]
if you want to make those idiotic posts I will call for you to be banned for blatant trolling (message left on irc)
  • Concerns and warnings by other users
TheDJ
Ocaasi
Wnt
Seraphimblade
SJ.

The above examples were posted to Ottava away from the main discussion on his user talk page, as an expression of concern, in a manner that made clear I hoped he would think about it, and consider his actions. Instead his response was:

  • Deleted the post and replaced it by a post that had to be suppressed, post more threats on-wiki and on irc (some quite inappropriate), and leave a post accusing Guillom of abuse.
  • Following Guillom's action, Ottava re-removed the post and also Wnt's reply (which is his right) but replaced it by allegations and a personal attack instead [18]. He also then removed the subsequent post that simply linked the response to the original post to provide context [19]. In effect Ottava used his user talk as a means to post an attack whose context and balancing comment are both removed, relying on the usual self-management of userpages to present a one-sided view.
  • Ottava posted threats on irc, including threats to post logs on-wiki. I asked for copies of any logs but was refused. (I also suggested if he was sure then to post them but with full context, there being nothing to hide. He declined.)
  • As an example, his irc rant included accusations of having "promoted the rape of children" (apparently referring to agreement with consensus that racists, criminals, and abusers who are able to leave their actions off-wiki and show they are prepared to edit neutrally without advocacy are allowed to edit), being a "pedophile defender" (one would have to go a long way to find such "defense" as it doesn't exist), "I still run Wikiversity", and "I will get rid of you like I got rid of Gmaxwell".


I posted as part of the note on Ottava's talk page: "There may be positive contributions and points to consider. Unfortunately the above behavior drowns them out" [20]. That still seems the issue.

Ottava routinely dismisses feedback and views on an individual level as "fringe/POV" (at least 8 experienced users, diffs above), or ignores it, or it results in attacks or accusations of abuse. He continues attacks off-wiki claiming Wikiversity ownership and that he can "get rid" of people. Although it has not affected me, I have no idea what other users he may attack or tried to coerce or intimidate off-wiki into not contributing. The community is asked to give thoughtful communal (as opposed to purely individual) feedback to Ottava on conduct, and to make unambiguously clear what the actual expectations are of him by the community.

FT2 (Talk | email) 17:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional evidence[edit]

Examples evidenced during this RFC.

1. Ottava continued to claim to other users that Guillom abused his access after being told multiple oversighters agreed the action was correct
  • Ottava stated numerous times that Guillom abused his access: [21][22][23]
  • Oversighter Mardetanha, asked by Ottava to review, stated to Ottava: policy is not breached here... me and another local OS also confirm that the action was performed correctly [24].
  • Ottava responded by ignoring it and continued to repeat his unfounded claim against Guillom: [25][26]


2. Ottava claimed support from Mardetanha to bolster his claims against FT2 and Guillom; Mardetanha responded by stating Ottava is lying
Ottava at this RFC related to Guillom: I have IRC logs with Mard in which it was pointed out (and he accepted) that... [27]
  • Mardetanha response:– wow @ such a lie ... Since I saw my name , I have adress that this utterly a lie , I have never told I knew that Derhexer was online + I have never told it was not an emergency [28]
Ottava at this RFC: [Mardetanha] accepted that... the statement about FT2 defending certain groups of people was made also by FT2 in public
  • Mardetanha response:– email: he is lying... on-wiki: he [Ottava] told me FT2 supports trying to let pedophiles to edit wikipedia , and I told him I myself personally don't see any objection if someone wants to edit wikipedia if he is respecting our policies [29]


3. Ottava claimed support from "many stewards" for his claims against Ocaasi; a check with steward-l does not confirm this
  • Ocaasi - Ottava claimed I asked many stewards and meta admin and all say it is suspicious [30], however not one of the "many stewards" has said this on-wiki. This was checked by email inquiry to steward-l but has still has not revealed even one steward willing to confirm they made such a statement. (If "many stewards" did, could they confirm it on the talk page.)

Response[edit]

FT2 posted quite a lot of things that are factually inaccurate and defends unacceptable behavior.

1. Under "Making unfounded, or unconsidered statements" - " We are not here to provide people with their source material for books [4]" He is claiming that we are here to provide source material for books that have nothing to do with WMF? This isn't in -any- of our scopes on any projects. This is well known by FT2 yet he makes a claim to the contrary anyway.

2. " [H]undreds of thousands of pornographic images that are only used by a small group of people to wank to each other [5]" Yes, there are tons of unused pornographic images that do nothing but sit in user space on Commons. Hundreds of these images were deleted because they were done by exhibitionists. There are dozens of news articles reporting on it and it is a major embarrassment to the WMF. FT2 knows this.

3. " Any credible medical textbook or guide only has one or two -drawn- images [6] a made-up claim" A made up claim because he linked to google books with one book that has no pornographic images and does rely on drawings? This doesn't even come close to meeting the claim he stated yet he posts it up anyway.

4. " [P]enis images are not going to be used on Wikiversity, Wikisource, Wikiquote, or the other sister projects. They are only used on Wikipedia [7]" He has yet to show where penis images are being used on Wikiversity, Wikisource, or Wikiquote, but is willing to say that I am wrong.

5. "One image of a penis can be rationalized as education. Any more? No [8];" Doesn't provide any justification and it is purely laughable to say we need a 1000 penis images.

6. " Controversial, by definition, means that something is either not "truly legal" or not "truly ethical" [9]" Doesn't contradict which is 100% factual.

7. "To an editor from Holland, You are a POV pusher of a fringe group that is the reason why the Netherlands has constant riots and protests [10]" Political/social anarchists are the reason why there are many Muslim riots in the Netherlands, leading to a large cultural warfare with notable libertines executed by radical Muslim groups. Furthermore, the Netherlands swung greatly to the right because of libertine actions causing a major backlash. Brothels and coffee shops are highly restricted now and will be even more so. This is fact.

8. "To a user of 3 years and 3600 edits standing, you have no history or background. From what I can see, you've basically just appeared for this debate [11] Wnt has very few edits on any of the sister projects [12]" In 2 years, I had 24,000 edits on one project without using any scrips. Everyone knows that script editing can be used to get fast edits, and one of the things at RfA is to check if someone "cheated" their edit count by using scripts. FT2 knows this yet persists anyway.

9. "To a user with 13,000 edits + sysophood on Commons, and 31,000 edits + sysop on Enwiki, TheDJ... does nothing more than push a few scripts [13]" See above. The Thing That Should Never Be and Betacommand use the same scripts and have far more edits on our projects. Script edits do not make you a credible user.

10. " It is odd that you hide your identity [15]" Logged out editing to hide who you are is highly frowned upon with sanctions being the common response. FT2 knows this.

11. " stop editing logged out or I will ask for a CU to verify that it is actually you signing as your name on that IP [17]" Logged out editing and posting a sig line of a user is inappropriate. A steward warned him about it and pointed out that such is inappropriate. FT2 knows this.


The above has many lines that FT2 knows he is in the wrong about but puts them up anyway in order to further his own views. He has stated publicly on IRC many times that he enjoys arguing, likes to "debate", and has pushed radical views on pornography in multiple discussions. He was kicked off ArbCom for his unethical behavior and has been the source of many attacks since then for unethical actions.

Then he makes completely unethical statements: "Deleted the post and replaced it by a post that had to be suppressed, post more threats on-wiki and on irc (some quite inappropriate), and leave a post accusing Guillom of abuse."

Guillom does not have the rights to use OS abilities on Meta. This was confirmed by multiple Stewards. FT2 asked Guillom to perform an action that Guillom knew blatantly violated his rights as a Steward to do. This is pure abuse and both FT2 and Guillom know that he had no right to perform such an action.

"In effect Ottava used his user talk as a means to post an attack whose context and balancing comment" You mean pure harassment. You were told that you weren't welcome on my talk page yet persisted anyway.

"Ottava posted threats on irc, including threats to post logs on-wiki. " Showing logs of -your- inappropriate statements is not a threat. You claiming it is is disruptive, incivil, and a way to try to hide from you acting completely abusively and reprehensibly. You have a long and proven desire to disrupt to push a POV and this is verified by IRC evidence. Many people have seen it before.

You even admit your fringe POV above: "(apparently referring to agreement with consensus that racists, criminals, and abusers who are able to leave their actions off-wiki and show they are prepared to edit neutrally without advocacy are allowed to edit)" This is inappropriate. Admitted pedophiles, convicted or no, are forbidden from Wikipedia. You don't like it so you try to do whatever you can to push for pedophiles having the right to edit. You even state such above. Such a radical and dangerous POV needs to be exposed because it is unacceptable in a community that has children as an essential part of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


Quick comments as I think the community can evaluate this on its own merits:
  1. WMF hosted content is used for any private or commercial use, including books and publications, mostly having nothing to do with WMF.
  2. Noting the exaggeration "hundreds of thousands" which is the key part. Exaggeration to make a point is unhelpful.
  3. Had Ottava checked before claiming no credible textbook has more than "1-2 images" and those being only "drawn", he would have found this is a ridiculous claim. Example link was within the first page of Google hits, a significant clinical textbook ("Atlas of anatomy") that contains photographs. Other fields may also legitimately use them. Exaggeration to make a point.
  4. Original statement was "will never be used", not "are not currently used". Exaggeration to make a point.
  5. Statement was that claiming Commons needs one image only. Claiming that disagreement equates to Commons hosting "a thousand" images is a straw man - putting words into others mouths that they did not say, to make a point.
  6. A genuine definition of "controversial" can be found in a dictionary.
  7. Will let others judge factuality on the claim Holland "has constant riots and protests" due to these reasons.
  8. Will let others judge if Ottava's assessment of Wnt's standing is merited.
  9. Will let others judge if Ottava's assessment of TheDJ's standing is merited.
  10. Noting the subtle change in Ottava's response. Editing logged out to hide who you are is an issue. The user concerned has stated many times (and been ignored by Ottava) that he does not hide who he is, in fact he signs his IP posts to ensure it's clear [31].
  11. Same.
The rest is heading towards unfounded claims. While I'm happy to address them, it's off topic here. I'm happy for the community to assess the evidence above, I'm happy for Ottava to submit logs showing the views he claims provided he does so with full context and non-disruptively, as there is nothing to hide (others will be able to verify them), and I'm happy for Ottava to clarify why explaining and endorsing long standing established consensus equates to "admitting a fringe POV".
The actual site policy for enwiki is about advocacy and misuse, namely that "Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked". This is the position I have stated to Ottava. A recent enwiki ANI thread on an admitted extreme racist equally opposed the idea of banning on the basis of beliefs alone where they are not brought onto Wiki(p/m)edia or promoted here, and was closed with the summary "If there is any consensus to emerge from the above, it is that a user's views should not be a primary basis for a ban... Any new discussion, if it proves necessary, should focus on actions".   FT2 (Talk | email) 22:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


You know 100% that pedophiles who are admitted pedophiles are banned. Not just advoates and not just "misuse". Tyciol was one person who was rightfully banned for being an admitted pedophile that you kept trying to defend his "right to edit" over and over on IRC.
For your claims:
1. "WMF hosted content is used for any private or commercial use" - No. They are licensed so they -can- be, but there is no intent to actually do this. Quite the contrary, paid editing and related commercial based editing activities are heavily frowned upon with many editors banned. FT2 knows this as he had involvement with Gregory Kohs's case and those like it.
2. "Exaggeration to make a point is unhelpful." There is no certain number of how much porn was ever put on Wikipedia if you calculate in the deleted images, but hundreds of thousands has been a number used before. If the survey says we have over 1000 images of just -white penis- without anything else in the picture, then over 100,000 for all porn is likely.
3. I own many credible textbooks on medicine. Is Medicine anatomy? no. Do they have the amount of photos wiki has? No. Did FT2 post a book that doesn't show what he wanted it to show? Yes.
4. "Original statement was "will never be used", not "are not currently used". Exaggeration to make a point." You haven't proved that there will ever be a use. Wikisource has public domain images only connected with books, and the pornography on Commons is user generated. Wikiversity does not allow such things based on standard practice. Wikiquote also.
5. "Statement was that claiming Commons needs one image only. Claiming that disagreement equates to Commons hosting "a thousand" images is a straw man " You were the one attacking my claim, not the other way around. You haven't stressed -any- limitations in the porn but have railed against anyone who has.
6. "A genuine definition of "controversial" can be found in a dictionary." To be controversial, by definition, it would have to break a cultural rule. Cultural rules can be broken down into laws or morality (i.e. social or legal rules). You haven't been able to provide evidence to the contrary and the basic definition of controversial as a mere "debate" isn't correct as preferring chocolate over vanilla could be part of a debate but isn't controversial. Saying "Jews are evil" or something like that -is- controversial because it is immoral to disparage an ethnic group like that.
10. "Editing logged out to hide who you are is an issue. The user concerned has stated many time" If he was showing who he was he would log in. By using an IP, he splits up his contribs making it harder to identify if his contribs are the same if you believe that he is the sole owner of the IP and sole possible user of it. There is also no password to an IP, so that makes it even more uncertain. This is well known by FT2 and there is no justification for performing such a strange set of actions. If you want to log in and sign a post as your user name, fine. But signing a user name on an account that you are not using is always problematic, especially when it is an IP.
" I'm happy for Ottava to clarify why explaining and endorsing long standing established consensus equates to "admitting a fringe POV". " There is no long standing consensus that says that pedophiles editing "responsibly" have the right to edit after they are pointed out to be pedophiles. Quite the opposite, our WMF executive has stated that it is "common sense" to ban pedophiles. An extreme racist is neither a pedophile, a rapist, or a murderer as was stated before. There is a different between the groups, with pedophiles being the most obvious and dangerous, requiring blocking even though FT2 has vocally disagreed with that. The matter was very connected to the pornography matter on Commons, and FT2 participated in both discussions pushing the same ideas in both. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
As a side note, User:Jennavecia/Laralove is a well known individual who had a close friend that was banned for being a "racist" on Wikipedia. FT2's statements and examples do not reflect the whole history of the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


Keeping it short:
  1. Noting the subtle change in Ottava's response: "You know 100% that pedophiles who are admitted pedophiles are banned" - this inclusion of "admitted" (and advocacy) now correctly reflects enwiki policy.
  2. Facts should be checked before making claims - Jennavecia's friend was not banned for racist matters. He was blocked by ArbCom for legal threats imported at the time into Wikipedia and escalated there [32]. He was later discovered to have rejoined under a hidden account which was blocked for evasion when discovered [33]. Racism was not a reason for the blocks.
FT2 (Talk | email) 22:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


"this inclusion of "admitted" (and advocacy) now correctly reflects enwiki policy" Um, you know that non-admitted pedophilia advocates have been banned also, so what are you on about? If we find out someone is a pedophile, they are banned. You -still- defended Tyciol and claimed he had the right to edit even though there were tons of statements by him saying he would act in that way which led to him being banned to begin with. That is the point here. You opposed the policy and fought about it for days over IRC. And furthermore, Jennavecia et al sure have a different view than you do on why he was banned. It pretty much says he was a racist when it says: "wanted others to agree with definitions he felt correct on the topic, which he knew in the real world were often viewed with hostility and would often be rejected. It backfired badly." Anyone who read the case at the time knows that. The link of evidence even has it mentioned here: "it's probably just the paranoia that goes along with my side-job of being a white supremacist" He pointed out that he was being called a racist and -that- was why he was banned. You just tried to pretend it wasn't true when the evidence all points to it being true. How can you keep making all of these false statements over and over and think it isn't a problem? Seriously, what is your game here? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


  • Dates and logs with full context please (my wiki-email will do with a summary of dates/times on the talk page) for any claim about IRC or a case being "fought about... for days" – much less improperly.
  • Yes the user made controversial statements, no this was not the reason for the block. Any enwiki ArbCom member (or Jimbo) can check the mailing list and confirm that your allegation that the block was deliberately misdescribed to the community in 2008 is unfounded. Ask them. The blocking arbs/ex-arbs/clerks were Jpgordon [34] (reversed while under discussion [35]), Raul654 [36] and Manning Bartlett [37]. The user was blocked at the point he escalated and imported his actions (example).
FT2 (Talk | email) 03:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


Date and logs? I've already provided them to others interested. You've stated many times that you personally think that those people have a "right" to edit. Are you suddenly going to take it back? Are you going to contradict yourself above and say that all pedophiles should be banned?
"Yes the user made controversial statements, no this was not the reason for the block." Apparently, you are the only one who thinks that. Arbitrators were willing to help him because they were disgusted with your actions in pushing for his block for being a racist, which wasn't the full story but a way -you- were able to get rid of him. You were kicked off ArbCom for abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, for anyone curious, even as a "high power" person, he was still blocked by Bishonen for problematic behavior here. People have had a major problem with FT2: "His refusal to respond to a simple question which goes to his integrity, and to his suitability to be an arbitrator, is disrupting the arbitration committee and the project." He was removed as an Arbitrator, which represents the highest amount of abuse necessary and the amount of criticism necessary. He casts stones at me but lost every bit of power at Wikipedia over his near constant disruption. If anyone is curious, you can see me attempt to defend FT2 in order to prevent drama. Notice how the situation contradicts both the ways he attempts to characterize himself and me. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


"Provided them to others" doesn't cut it. This is now the 6th or 7th time I've asked you to send anything you claim shows anything. It's customary to let the person being badmouthed check the logs too. Especially when there's a serious doubt they exist in the form stated.
The rest's pure fantasy land and I suggest you ask enwiki ArbCom. Also note, far from your claim, I stepped down, but remained an Oversighter, Checkuser, Sysop, and OTRS member. I also remained a list admin for both of the privacy related mailing lists functionaries-en and oversight-l. Nine months later I requested removal of higher tools due to reduced activity (work-related wikibreak) [38].
Trying to attack the RFC opener may be customary but doesn't help. Enough said. You may have the last word. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


""Provided them to others" doesn't cut it. " Odd how you can tell me what does and doesn't cut it, when you were removed for refusing to answer people based on something you could not refuse. You are refusing to say if you now believe that pedophiles don't have the right edit.
"I stepped down" That is fantasy. One need only read the comments in the link:
1. Friday "FT2 is an obvious kook, and makes the entire project look ridiculous."
2. Giano "I completely endorse this block. Wales and the Arbcom have steadfastly refused to address this matter, so now others who care for the project have."
3. Sceptre "The community has literally no confidence in him as an arbitrator. "
4. Majorly "Agree with Sceptre."
5. JoshuaZ "A lot of people aren't at all happy with FT2's behavior and refusal to answer about this issue. But FT2's lack of comment together with much of his previous behavior serves to undermine his own legitimacy quite effectively."
6. HalfShadow "just de-admin him so he can't do any damage."
7. Everyking "I don't approve of FT2's conduct and I feel he should be sanctioned for it. "
8. Verbal "Perhaps FT2 will take this as a signal to resign his bit and arb privileges."
9. Secret "I think FT2 should just step down from ArbCom, and let drama die down."
10. Blueboy96 "I was greatly disturbed by FT2's behavior in l'affaire OrangeMarlin, and called for him to resign over it. The diffs Bish cited only prove why."
11. DuncanHill "It is a very great shame indeed that the newly expanded Arbcom, with their new ideas to improve it, should be undermined by FT2."
12. Thatcher "FT2 has unfortunately fudged the truth in some recent comments, about which I will say more in a few hours. That may be a reason to ask him to step down from Arbcom"
13. Tom Harrison "FT2's obfuscation and continuing delay are becoming disruptive."
The vote of no confidence can be found here. His resignation was forced and was under a major cloud. You can see above from a selection that it was based on inappropriate actions, obfuscation, and outright dishonesty. He lost the support of the community for breaking every single ethical standard and policy. A large portion of the community wanted him completely banned with no chance of coming back. He was a sitting Arb at the time with a lot of power, and thus the ability to intimidate any challengers. They still got rid of him. That suggests that his behavior was so problematic that the community rose up anyway. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to update[edit]

It is not an unfounded claim when it was pointed out two things Mard did not know - 1. that DerHexer was on IRC at the time and 2. that the claim was said by you in public and could no be construed as "libel" because you continue to protect such fringe groups "right to edit" even though policy is set against it. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Mard did not realize I said -accepted- and not -agreed- to. English is not Mard's first language, it is Farsi. I have the logs of the conversation where Mard is unable to point out anything libelous about my statements as there was -nothing-. There was also no personal informaion, thus disqualifying it for OS. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

And yet you ignore the meta admin who said it was inappropriate. The discussion happened in chat. You still want to say that editing logged out is appropriate and you can say that with a straight face? Hell, you couldn't even abide by our neutral title rules. You -never- address a user in a title. You can't even get that right. It is as if every single action here is intended to violate all of our rules. You were kicked off ArbCom with an opposition of over 75% for a reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions by Ottava Rima[edit]

Since this gets at the heart of it and FT2 has dodged answering the questions before. The logs were mostly to reveal his thoughts, and I have claimed that he said above about allowing criminals to edit. So lets get the record straight right now and I will agree to go off his -current- views now and as he defines them to my questions, no more, no less, than what he says. I ask this because "an RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors" and the creator of this RfC is making claims about how others discuss his views. - Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Question 1. In your own opinion, do pedophiles (self-identified or third-party identified) deserve a "right" to edit?
  • Question 2. Does a child molester deserve the same rights as anyone else?
  • Question 3. Does a convicted murderer or a convicted rapist deserve a "right" to edit?
  • Question 4. Do people on the sex-offenders registry deserve a "right" to edit?
  • Question 5. Do those that admit to indulging in illegal sexual activities that aren't rape/child molesting (i.e. bestiality, necrophilia, etc) deserve a "right" to edit?
  • Question 6. Do you consider your views on these questions in accordance with US legal thought?
  • Question 7. Do you consider your views on these questions mainstream Wikimedian thought?
Ottava, this is not Requests for Comment:FT2. This is another example of the deflection I was talking about in my statement. If you believe FT2 has behaved inappropriately, there are appropriate venues to bring that up. This one's about you. Seraphimblade 16:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Um, ALL RfC's are about the filer and all commenters too. Reread: "an RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors". Do you have that little respect for the RfC process? It isn't a one way street and it is expected that you follow our standards here. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Ocaasi[edit]

Ocaasi. There's obviously a long a complicated history involving Ottava and FT2. Not all of those issues are relevant to this discussion, or at least I won't weigh in on them. Ottava has been attempting to discredit other editors' claims by pointing to their past or a presumed bias which renders them, well, dismissable. I avoided returning such an ad hominem approach, even when it would have been easily available, because it allows arguments to be ignored on technicalities. The debate regarding controversial content is a good example of that. Ottava's reasonable and challenging points are simply lost in a sea of accusations of bad faith, as if anyone who disagrees with him has nothing in mind except sheltering pedophiles and pushing porn.

It'd be one thing if Ottava thought this as a personal opinion, but it's another when he interjects these claims as fact in response to substantive arguments. I don't know what's worse, that Ottava's claims are pushing away good editors and making the conversation less civil, or that his own claims are being basically trivialized by the way he makes them. Anyway, this is not a personal vendetta, and it seems editors like Ottava should have a place on these projects because of his obvious involvement in education, scholarship, classics, etc, and his concern for the reputation of Wikipedia, etc.. That is a valuable perspective and sets him up to be quite a strong contributor when the same ethic is not used to bludgeon others who disagree with him.

As for policy and expertise, I think there is some confusion on Ottava's part about policy precedents versus what it means to have a broad and somewhat theoretical discussion about issues. Not every discussion will have an answer on a policy page, and even if policy offers guidance, policy changes and needs to make sense in light of new issues and ideas. In order to do so, it needs to be responsive to challenges from both those who find it too permissive or too strict. Either way, I think it would be better for there to be a simple concession on Ottava's part: to make all of his claims without mentioning another editor's motives or presumed disqualifications. That by itself would allow most of the discussion to continue without incident.

Lastly, about the i.p. situation, Kylu did not say anything about it. His caution was about editing other user's comments (for typos). The issues were temporally related, but if you look closely, there was no mention of the i.p. situation from him at all. As FT2 addressed, signing my i.p. with my username is not sock-puppeting, not to mention the fact that all of Ocaasi's (my) userpages have the link to this i.p. address on the top of each talk page. So either Ocaasi is a dead user who is completely oblivious or I'm Ocaasi. Or there's someone socking as me who only uses my writing style and only addresses my claims. Anyway, it doesn't matter, because the arguments are relevant here and not these technicalities; this is just another technicality. That said, if a check-user would allay Ottava's suspicions, great, but that would mean there wouldn't be a reason to avoid the content of the arguments. User:Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 20:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

(Clarified on the talk page) FT2 (Talk | email) 21:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
FT2 is wrong about signing someone else's name on your post and he knows it. It is unacceptable behavior to use an IP and signing for a user name. It is called logged out editing and has always been seen as wrong, for the minimum of splitting up contributions and making it harder to see what you are doing. Motives and backgrounds are important, especially when behaviors like you represent a lack of understanding our norms. People who do not follow our norms lack the ability to speak on what is best for our community. Experience and character are essential when taking advice on what is proper or improper. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
If you can show me a discussion or policy page which addresses what I've been doing, that would be helpful. I was told directly by a long-time editor that it was not a problem and that he didn't see any reason to stop. FT2 is the second to do so. Besides you, no one has mentioned it. If you want to have an RFC about the practice, irrespective of this particular situation, that might be useful.
I hate to mention it, Ottava, but those who preach the standard of character have to possess it in order for the claim to hold any weight. Your constant character attacks do not evince the standard you are proposing. That is a tu quoque argument, but if your whole point is that uncivil people can't be trusted, then I don't know how you expect other editors to listen to you.
On the merits, your appeals to experience and character don't hold water. Wikipedia does not have seniority and it does not have a character-council. The arguments I have made, which you are alleging I "lack the ability to speak on", stand regardless of how long I've been on Wiki or how you feel about me. Those are noblesse oblige values which have been more or less discarded by people who want arguments to stand for themselves, and to be made civilly no matter what. Your position that you will defend the sword of chivalry by name-calling any outsiders smacks of basically everything that Wikipedia's ethic is against and has been from the beginning. Since you've brought up "our norms", I'll refer you to a presumably reliable source, and you'll have to excuse my appeal to an authority, since it's incidental in this case:
JimboWales/Statement of Principles
1. Wikipedia's success to date is entirely a function of our open community...Doing the Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the NPOV and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty.
2. Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, no elite, and no hierarchy or structure to get in the way of this openness to newcomers.
7. Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. A person with a complaint should be encouraged constantly to present problems in a constructive way in the open forum of the mailing list. Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, I am afraid I must simply reject and ignore. Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. I must not let the "squeaky wheel" be greased just for being a jerk.
8. Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Both are objectively valuable moral principles. Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends.
[heavily excerpted, but no content changes]
User:Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 21:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
"by a long term editor" who was kicked off ArbCom for abuse and misstatements of policy and other majorly problematic actions as shown above. Logging out to edit when you have an account is disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
[39] "If you made an edit without logging in, you cannot go back and directly tie that edit to your account. If your desire to account for the edit overrides your desire for anonymity, you can log in, make a dummy edit, and add a note in the edit summary about the previous edit." It doesn't say make all of your edits logged out and merely sign them with an account name.
[40] Jimbo has said: "Sorry, but anon ip numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members of the community. If you want to be a good editor, get an account, make good edits. I really don't care about your complaint as currently stated." IP editing when you have an account is very problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
As a point of note, if I log in, will you not preemptively dismiss my arguments?
The editor to first informally sanction my i.p. editing was not FT2, but TWOFR (W:User_talk:Ocaasi/Archive_1#IP_edits).
Again, dismissing FT2 for having a bad record on Wiki kind of invalidates your own standing.
Re: W:WP:LOUT, I'm not going back and directly tying edits to my account. I tie them to my account right up front. That policy page might be a good place for an RfC, though I hope you realize that my interest is not in fighting for the issue but not having you dismiss editors on technicalities.
Jimbo was addressing someone who was unfairly blocked. He refused to fix a problem which an editor ran into as an i.p. On the contrary, here, you have manufactured a problem with my editing as an i.p. where it has caused no harm at all. You are dismissing my arguments to make a point about proper logging-in decorum. Which, despite your claims, wasn't a problem until you made it one.
What do you think about my bolded suggestion above? User:Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 22:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
"if I log in, will you not preemptively dismiss my arguments? " If you logged in, you would be acting in a way that conforms to our basic standards. So far, you've been doing a lot that violates our standards. You are also trying to argue that your view is what is needed for the WMF, and if you violate our standards how can you even know what is right for us? And Jimbo has said the same thing about IPs - IP editing grants no right, and if you have an account and log out to edit, that is seen as very egregious problem. You are splitting up your "contribs" and it is inappropriate to do so when you can click "log in" without a problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I posted a question on the Wikipedia page. Maybe others will comment. Socking is about misrepresentation or intentionally avoiding scrutiny by using multiple accounts. I think, given my clear links to all entries between userspaces, and the focused nature of these discussions, that there is not much of a problem here, aside from selecting a pro forma reason to disregard my arguments. The notion that someone who does one thing outside of convention cannot make a meaningful contribution otherwise doesn't follow. Jimbo said that ips have fewer rights not no rights--regardless, that's not license to step on them when the opportunity arises. It just means they don't have firm ground to make complaints from. Why is this an "egregious" problem? Moreso than character attacks? I just don't see how the dots connect. You above all else express concern for standards, but you seem content to violate them so long as you're defending them. I don't get it. What do you think about just no longer addressing editor's past actions or your personal opinion of their standing and instead just focusing on their arguments? Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 00:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
"given my clear links to all entries" There is not a clear link in "Special:Contribs" nor is there a legitimate justification to not log in. I asked many stewards and meta admin and all say it is suspicious to say the least. You can easily log in and you refuse to do so. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I haven't refused to log in. I log in regularly. Sometimes I don't out of convenience, or to see what it's like to not have rollback/reviewer/autoconfirmed privileges. Sometimes I'm on a computer which doesn't have my passwords preset. Or my cache was recently cleared. Theoretically, though it hasn't happened, I could be on a computer where I didn't trust the security of the system. All those are possible. More importantly, it creates no actual harm in this situation that I can see, so while it's not a practice that I see worth spending much time defending, I think that focusing on it is violating some principle of 'if it does no harm, pay it no mind'. I might refuse to accept your premise that my arguments have no standing unless I log in. That seems about right. The link to my entries is in my signature, on my usertalk page, and on my ip talk page. I think this is a big red herring that has nothing to do with you or controversial content on commons. Diversion from substantial arguments doesn't seem to be a standard for anything. More to the point, the second I do log in, and make the same argument, I suspect you will simply say that I'm promoting a fringe/personal pov, that I have insufficient experience, that I'm sheltering pedophiles, etc. So I don't really have that much to go on in terms of evidence that you actually want to focus on substance rather than technicalities and accusations, which is what this RFC is about, I think. Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 03:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I've previously commented on this, and I'm a little reluctant to keep chasing this across the Wiki. To summarize, my main gripe is that Ottava says things I think aren't true and uses arguments I don't regard as valid. I wish Guillom had not RevDeled whatever it was that Ottava said to me (if he addressed me in those comments) - I think that RevDel has lived up to my worst expectations and is being used far more its ostensible role as a "less-than-lethal" replacement for article deletion. I guess Ottava and I agree on something after all. Wnt 06:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Wnt, it is ridiculous to try and claim that what Ocaasi is doing is correct. As he points out, there is no legitimate reason for him to continue to do it. By the way, Guillom suppressed a statement that said FT2 defended groups that he even defends above, and it was done by a non-local OS while there was one present. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Seraphimblade[edit]

Seraphimblade As noted above, I already spoke to Ottava at the above discussion, regarding the tremendous number of inappropriate comments he made there. Let's start with a clear case of inappropriate behavior. In the above rebuttal, Ottava claims "Guillom does not have the rights to use OS abilities on Meta. This was confirmed by multiple Stewards." In fact, the only comment on the matter I can find is this one: [41], clearly telling him there was no breach of policy. Ottava provides no diffs to any conversation with any other steward. This is a clear example of the first type of clearly inappropriate behavior he engages in—throwing wild accusations with no evidence to back them, and in many cases (including this one), in flat contradiction of the reality of the situation.

However, this also clearly illustrates a second tactic he frequently uses, that being obfuscation of the real issue by focusing on issues which are marginally (or not at all) relevant. Obviously, none of us know the content of the comment (or should know it, oversighted edits are oversighted for a reason). The point of the matter is, Ottava made a comment so inappropriate that it had to be oversighted, and this action (despite his wild claim of abuse and wilder claim that several people agreed) has not been reversed. That, not the tangent of exactly who is supposed to oversight it, is the point.

This is a common tactic for Ottava. He will post walls of text on some tangential issue to distract from the real one, especially when the real issue is Ottava himself. And that is all too commonly the case.

The issues which need to be addressed here are listed below. Evidence has already been presented for them by FT2's statement, above. I strongly urge anyone commenting here to look at what has actually happened, and not to be distracted by Ottava's tactics of misdirection and obfuscation.

  • Ottava makes unfounded accusations against almost any editor who disagrees with him.
  • Ottava asserts the same point over and over, without any attempt to back it.
  • Ottava posts "responses" to other editors that do not actually respond to or acknowledge what they said at all.
  • Ottava refuses to accept that anyone but him could conceivably be correct, even when presented with evidence.
  • Ottava mischaracterizes and takes out of context the positions of other editors in order to demonize them.
  • Ottava is either incapable of or refuses to engage in collaborative, productive discussion, and often hijacks and derails discussions that were productive before he joined them.
  • Ottava is uncivil to the point that I cannot remember a time at which he posted a civil response to a person with whom he disagreed.

These issues must be addressed. At this point, Ottava has been told an uncountable number of times that this type of behavior is unacceptable, has been banned or restricted from various projects and areas for his behavior, and still refuses even to acknowledge that any of his behavior even might in fact be the root cause for these warnings and restrictions. While Ottava has indisputably made a significant number of excellent content area contributions, his participation in discussions is invariably disruptive. I see the acceptable outcomes here as only a few. The first and most ideal outcome would be that Ottava would change his behavior to conform to the requirements of a collaborative project. However, he has had countless opportunities to do so, and each time has not. If that pattern continues, the other outcomes are that Ottava is restricted from participating in discussions, or is restricted from participation at all. While these measures are extreme and I recommend them with regret, no amount of good content contribution entitles one to act disruptively by harassing, belittling, and falsely accusing other editors. I urge that the discussion focus on whether Ottava wishes to change or go, and for those commenting not to be distracted by the obfuscating behavior which is unfortunately so common to any discussion involving Ottava. Seraphimblade 00:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have IRC logs with Mard in which it was pointed out (and he accepted) that 1. DerHexer was online at the time and not an emergency and 2. that the statement about FT2 defending certain groups of people was made also by FT2 in public, which means that it is neither libelous or inappropriate as FT2 has made the same claim himself freely. Mard said that I can appeal the decision or use it against Guillom when it comes up to the Steward review. I am electing to do the latter as Guillom has a long history of such problematic actions.
Furthermore, your statements saying that all of my remarks are incivil is rather incivil, as you are directly stating things that are just untrue unless you redefine "incivil" as "whatever I want it to be right now to suit my argument".
The only thing that justifies any of your statement is your own point of view that was pointed out as not being in what is best for the project as a whole. You didn't like being pointed out as being wrong. That is not incivility. However, like your claim above, you speak without knowing and you push a dangerous point of view that does not represent the common view of things. You even tried to defend FT2 above who was kicked off ArbCom for the same kind abuses he is pulling on Meta right now.
1. Fringe POV statements by Seraphimblade: "I would not, however, support no video whatsoever—if we did have such an animal photo or video, I would certainly support its use. That's what we have free media for." This comment was in an RfC stating that anal cream pie videos were necessary for Wikipedia's page w:Talk:Creampie (sexual act).
Such statements are completely irresponsible, incivil, and not appropriate for the WMF. You push a radical and fringe point of view where you think it is right to have "cream pie videos" of animal sex.
2. On BLP, he says equally absurd things here or here where he says: "Some sense...and not from NYBrad, which is one of the rare cases where I would say that... Our job is to write a reference work that is as complete and thorough as possible on subjects it covers, not to deliberately exclude material which passes our policies for inclusion on someone's cry of "SOMEBODY'S FEEWINGS MIGHT BE HURTED!!!!""
He does not have any respect for BLP and attacks highly respected Arbitrators who were not expelled from ArbCom for abuse.
There are hundreds of these radical statements all over the WMF site. It is amazing that he hasn't been WMF site banned yet. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
3. He tries to argue for the theoretical inclusion of rape videos here and say this about videos of murder: "As to the murder videos, as I said, we certainly do provide relevant images, even when they are difficult, to the corresponding articles, provided that they are either appropriately licensed or are acceptable as nonfree content. I think we are absolutely bound to include such things."
Your problem isn't with content but on licensing? And you think this is some how an acceptable point of view? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Since i saw my name , i have adress that this utterly a lie , i have never told i knew that Derhexer was online + i have never told it was not an emergency Mardetanha talk 10:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
+ he told me FT2 supports trying to let pedophiles to edit wikipedia , and I told him I myself personally don't see any objection if someone wants to edit wikipedia if he is respecting our policies Mardetanha talk 12:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I never said you had prior knowledge. Read again, I said I pointed out what you did not know and you accepted it. Furthermore, unless there was personal information revealed, it cannot be construed as an emergency. There was no personal information revealed. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I do. You addressed none of the topics I brought up. If you believe my behavior is inappropriate, by all means, start an RfC on me. This one's about you. Seraphimblade 02:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I addressed your premise 1. that I'm wrong (I disproved that) when referring to those like Guillom and 2. that I am wrong in characterizing you. You defend some of the most unethical things possible and feel no sense of guilt or shame at it. It is some of the most radical and dangerous. As quoted, you tried to justify the inclusion of murder videos. Your post above in this RfC is pure distraction of a very long and detailed past of how you tried to push this radical POV all over the WMF. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
No, you didn't. You made more vague claims, that you spoke to someone or another on IRC. Present actual diffs, or ask the people who agreed with you here to confirm it, or present actual evidence in some other way. And once again, if you believe my behavior to be inappropriate, go open an RFC on me. This one's about you. Seraphimblade 03:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't waste time on RfC's with no purpose. You have a long history of making inappropriate POV statements. I merely pointed this out. Your statements were not carried over into the final report of the survey. Thus, your statements were rightfully discredited as not representing a normal Wikimedia perspective. You come here weeks after it is resolved and try to start things up. The matter died back in September. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Kylu[edit]

Without claiming neutrality, I find that the above sections from all editors offer a great deal in the way of various complaints, accusations, diffs, and other evidence of varying damnation, but unless I've missed it, I actually find no attempts at defining a solution to these issues.

I strongly suspect that there won't be a simple solution that's strictly socially based, so perhaps the best way of managing various views on resolving the issue would be to use the system in use on various EnWiki RfC's: Make a subsection here named, "===Proposal of your name===", followed by your view and a suggestion as to what should be done to rectify the situation.

Proposed. Kylu 02:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal by Example User

  • User:Bad User is a terrible person and beat me up last week and stole my bike.
  • I feel this person should be blocked, banned, beaten up, then have the skin flayed from them with a rusty spoon. -Example User 02:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support agreed Just like that! -(user sig kylu is too busy to mock up)
  • Oppose disagree A spoon would take too long, just use a filet knife. -(different user)

MZMcBride[edit]

This page is way too long and boring. More images, please. And if Ottava is causing problems, warn him and then block him as necessary. I don't see why we need to react differently with Ottava than we do with every other user. --MZMcBride 05:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Listen, do you want to know a secret.jpg.
harej 05:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Ailurus fulgens RoterPanda LesserPanda.jpg
I've been advised to ignore the rest of this "RfC" since it was filed a few weeks after any interaction between FT2 and myself, a handful of things blown out of proporion, and FT2's unwillingness to clarify his stance by answering questions that can be found here. Until FT2 is willing to answer those direct questions then he has no ground to claim he was misrepresented. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Pathoschild[edit]

{{subst:w:Wikipedia:Collaboration first}}. —Pathoschild 16:25:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Essay contradicts arbcom?[edit]

Pathoschild, cough, ArbCom ruled the opposite in the climate change matter - [42] "The core purpose of the Wikipedia project is to create a high-quality free encyclopedia. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from making them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith." Nothing is more important than creating proper, highly reliable content in Wikipedia. Civility and collaboration when done to promote the fringe, inaccurate, or poorly sourced is not appropriate. Competence is required and neutrality is expected. Fringe is unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no contradiction. Disruptive editors are detrimental to creating the content, because they alienate other contributors. Many collaborating contributors tend to outweigh a few disruptive contributors. The ruling you just linked to supports the argument. You only quoted Principle #19 (Detrimental editing). The more relevant principles follow; feel free to follow the links to view them in context.
  • Principle #1 (Purpose of Wikipedia): "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among the contributors."
  • Principle #3 (User conduct): "Uncivil, unseemly, or disruptive conduct, including but not limited to lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, offensive commentary (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms in any language), personal attacks, unjustified failure to assume good faith, harassment, edit-warring, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, are all unacceptable as they are inconsistent with Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum."
  • Principle #6 (Casting aspersions): "It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations."
  • Principle #21 (Battlefield editing): "Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation."
Pathoschild 19:26:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
"Collaboration and dispute resolution are more important than content contributions in a wiki community."
That is what your essay says. That is not true. Content contribution is most important. You reversed the priorities. Collaboration for content then yes. But as proven by the case, collaboration can be done for negative purposes and even civil behavior can be a hindrance. This is not reflected in your essay. Now, you ignore that it says "The core purpose of the Wikipedia project". Everything else is secondary to the -core- purpose. You also forgot that POV pushing was also a hindrance to the encyclopedia.
"7) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. "
That right there is not used in any of your statements. Even polite, civil, and collaborative POV pushing is outright unacceptable. Your statements must reflect that to be an appropriate description of acceptability at the WMF. Furthermore, your quote about casting aspersions ignores that it says "without reasonable evidence", which has been provided. Thus, the evidenced back aspirations are accepted, especially when regarding number 7 and 19. These all make your essay no longer applicable to current practice of the encyclopedia. The priorities are as follow: 1st is that we have the best content, 2nd is that those pushing for bad content, POV, etc, are banned, 3rd is that those who are not POV pushing and destroying content are then civil to each other.
We are not here to accept or encourage the activities of POV pushers, especially those who push fringe statements such as "criminals have the right to edit" or "videos of murder are acceptable for Wikipedia". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Your quote is out of context. The essay in a soundbite: "Collaboration and dispute resolution are more important than content contributions in a wiki community [...] because [...] The increased contributions in this more collaborative community will far outweigh those made by disruptive editors. Therefore, productive contributions are not a valid excuse for disruptive or anti-collaborative behaviour."
The principles you mention are not mutually exclusive; your disagreement with others' opinions (or alleged POV pushing) does not give you license to ignore expectations of reasonable conduct or collaboration. There is also a big difference between an opinion you disagree with and POV pushing. You repeatedly state that an editor holds this or that opinion. A personal opinion (even one you disagree with) is not POV pushing. —Pathoschild 20:46:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Pathoschild, these users have posted in dozens of pages on Commons and Wikipedia trying to push for the inclusion of images that are not commonly accepted and trying to claim that fringe groups are acceptable. That, by the very definition, is POV pushing. These individuals would, per our policies, be outright banned. There is no way that people saying that videos showing murder are okay or that pedophiles do no harm are anything but 100% disruptive and inappropriate for the WMF. This is not about personal opinion. This is about encyclopedic integrity. As our executive Sue Gardner said, a ban on pedophiles is -common sense-. Those who would argue in support of their "right to edit" are pushing something that has no logical base, is fringe, and is a POV pusher as they keep pushing it on every possible page they can find. ArbCom prohibited many people and banned many people for their "personal opinion" before, so your statements are severely lacking. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Pathoschild is on point. It's not that, Ottava, you are wrong about the integrity of the wiki or even necessarily about the intentions of other editors. But if you take those two highly debatable issues completely for granted, there's still no justification anywhere in policy for dealing with these situations by slinging accusations. If you have an issue then it belongs in a request for comment or on an appropriate noticeboard where Stewards/Admins can make appropriate judgments. As is, you're suggesting, essentially, that you can do whatever you want so long as it is in pursuit of the goal of a better encyclopedia. That's like reasoning that if the goal were to responsibly educate children than I could go beat up bad teachers because even well intentioned teachers can't be allowed to disrupt the core goal. Incivility in the interest of content creates an encyclopedia wrapped in a time-bomb--a great gift, if you could ever get near it.
More importantly, your disregard for collaboration sidesteps the mechanism of content creation. Not only does collaboration make editing tolerable (if not enjoyable) but in cases of disagreement it literally makes it possible. Your appeal to content assumes that there is always agreement about 'which' content, and 'how' its presented. But without collaboration, how do you make those decisions? I'll tell you, by fiat. Without collaboration there is only tyranny, unilateral action, dismissal of others' views, edit-warring, factions, etc. Those ills don't arrive from people focusing on collaboration in lieu of content but because they don't focus on collaboration enough. Some will collaborate and not be constructive, but no one can dismiss collaboration towards that goal.
In other words, you're right that you don't need collaboration if you knew the correct content ahead of time and everyone agreed with you. In a perfect world, a priori, there would be no need for communication since we could all just execute ideal moves. But since the encyclopedia has not yet been written, and it's not clear which encyclopedia will be written, collaboration facilitates--permits--its construction. Lack of collaboration is not just inconvenient, it is perhaps impossible. User:Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 03:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
"slinging accusations" Only unfounded accusations are banned. Pointing out someone is pushing a fringe POV is not banned. If it was, there wouldn't be ANI, ArbCom, or any process for dealing with such problems and the Wiki would fall apart. POV has been one of the biggest threats and there is even multiple boards for it - Fringe, Content, etc. Collaboration does not mean working with people whose intent is to do opposite of what is in the best interest for Wikipedia. After all, we were warned against Wikianarchists who seek to remove all restrictions and promote content no matter what years ago. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
As a side note - I am the only content editor here. Not you. Not Pathoschild. Not FT2. Not Wnt. Not anyone else. No one has the ability to talk about "collaboration" here besides me as no one has been involved in collaborating to create content. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Unchecked and unfounded claim (like many others). There are 3000 FAs. There are other users who write the other 3.4 million articles. Editing barnstars: [43][44]. List of articles written covering around 100 topics from medicine, to law, to history, to technology, to biographies, to sociology, to politics (excluding rewrites of existing articles). GA's in fields from law to Latin to natural sciences: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. Other diffs to peruse before asserting that nobody else works on content: [50][51][52][53][54][55].
In respect of your claim to Pathos, it's poorly founded as you know. In your own case enwiki Arbcom did not hesitate to make clear that a hostile disruptive approach to other users was not ultimately mitigated by content writing. You were banned. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
5 articles? That is all you can do? I had more articles than the above go through after being banned - 2 FAs were passed, a handful of GAs, and some very public DYK. Your attempt to try and compare your "content", if those edits could be considered such, to a real content editor is just part of your long term problem. You were kicked off ArbCom for such actions. Just on this page, you violate most of the community norms like putting people's names in headings and the rest.
"ultimately mitigated by content writing" You mean 6 out of 18 Arbs, with 2 of them not recusing even though they were active in major parts of the case? Did you forget that one Arbitrator complained about it all? And where was it that my articles are no longer accepted on Wiki? Kubla Khan, Ode: Intimations of Immortality and Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard, you know, an 80k page, an 80k page, and a 60k page, are all my work post that ArbCom ruling. Stop saying stuff when you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
By the way, how does any of your statement justify a guy who was kicked off ArbCom for abuse trying to promote fringe views of sexuality on Meta along with trying to say that criminals have the "right to edit"? 13:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

We're back to accusing others, making those ad hominem attacks, and glorifying ourselves over solving problems. I almost wonder if we need a /pointless arguments subpage. Instead... Kylu 17:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In the case of the recommendations on controversial content, the content was the discussion. You indeed contribute content but so do others; maybe more people would make more content contributions if they weren't faced with the kind of attacks you make. Accusations are uncivil unless directed towards a constructive criticism or an exploratory forum for confirmation. Merely deciding yourself that people are guilty and telling them so is uncivil, as in, it is both unfriendly and follows no process of social procedure which permits multiple parties to explain their views and present evidence as well as possible solutions through interaction.
You mention ANI/Arbcom, etc. but you make your accusations outside of those forums. You should, if at all, wait to gather evidence and then raise a case--but only after politely asking someone to stop or considerately noting a disagreement in your approaches; but your accuse-first-and-defend-it-later approach is toxic. We were not only warned about wikianarchists--we were warned about anyone who wants to disrupt the wiki for any reason, whether through wikilawyering, policy creep, cabal behavior, ownership behavior, tendentious editing, civil pov pushing, personal accusations, etc. Yet you focus on only one of these as if it justifies ignoring or even committing the others.
Your great contributions have never been the issue. If you did nothing else on a talk page and never mentioned another editor's name you could be a legendary contributor rather than a notorious one. That's the problem; your talk actually takes away from the great work you do. Again, all I'm suggesting is that for, say, a month trial, you: a) don't accuse another editor of anything b) if you think something needs to be addressed ask for a third opinion c) in return, have people drop your past behavior as precedent. Then you can get back to editing as you do best. Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 01:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Antipatterns[edit]

Ottava, you are describing the VestedContributor antipattern, and resorting to the ad hominem fallacy to deflect criticism (literally, "an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise"). You make negative assertions with no provision of evidence (eg, that another editor was evicted from the Arbitration Committee with 75% opposition for abuse) [see my comment below]. You mire discussion by focusing on irrelevant points, such as your demand that another editor fill out a questionnaire on his personal opinions.

Throughout this discussion you have tended to focus exclusively on the alleged evil of others which you suggest justifies all misbehaviour, rather than addressing the concerns raised; on the talk page you even assert that some editors are not human. It is ironic that on your user page you complain that "people who I once respected act in the most incivil and unprofessional ways without any care to our community's policies on decorum and behavior", who "shrug at blatant abuse and intimidation, and all because it suits their own political view".

My initial comment was only a general statement about anticollaborative behaviour, but the toxicity of your attitude in dealing with conflict and opposition stands out to me as I read through the discussion. It seems that you have no intention of compromise or collaboration, and that the only outcome you will accept is for nothing to happen simply because the discussion has been driven into the mud.

{{subst:w:Wikipedia:Collaboration first}}. —Pathoschild 17:36:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

All misbehavior? There hasn't been any misbehavior proven. This RfC was started over 2 weeks after the last discussion. And on the talk page I asserted that some editors are not human? That is absurd.
There is no collaboration or compromise because there is nothing to collaborate or compromise -over-. It is a false issue that has nothing to do with the whole situation, put forth by you on an essay that direct contradicts our core principles and reverses all priorities.
Furthermore, RFC by definition examine the behavior of all parties, so claiming "ad hominem" is unacceptable ignores that it is -all- ad hominem. This is about behavior and individuals. FT2's behavior is extremely questionable. 1. There was no attempt to "resolve" any issue. 2. There was no issue as the matter ended weeks before. 3. FT2 has a proven record of harassing others and defying community standards, which make any claims by him direct hypocritical. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The above edit is a perfect example of the problem behavior, including a specific ad hominem argument, plus severe wikilawyering over technicalities. "Proven record of harassment" is no defense at all, and short delay (weeks!) is irrelevant. If Ottava would like to turn this around, he will need to start seeking to understand the complaints, asking for clearer explanations, rather than attacking those complaining. Last I noticed, "hypocritical" is a personal attack. If he does not understand the complaints, he will likely find it impossible to comply with restrictions. This is why I've suggested carefully specifying the problem behavior, without attempting to prove that "Ottava did it." He has a history of taking complaints and warnings as personal attacks, and responding as if he were fighting for his life. Focusing on proving that the complaint is valid simply causes him to amplify his defense, and he apparently thinks the best defense is a counterattack. Ottava, is there anyone here at meta you would trust to advise you? --Abd 19:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Ottava notified me about an error in my above post. Ottava did post a link to a failed community vote, which I somehow missed; sorry about that. I don't see evidence that the editor was "kicked off ArbCom for abuse" (and he retained checkuser & oversight access for nearly a year until he resigned), but I'll leave that debate to others. I think the rest of my comment still stands. —Pathoschild 03:02:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack Merridew[edit]

Ottava's tools; keep diggin'

I'm amazed to see this thing dragging on for months; must be a thousand hours of peoples' time wasted. Ottava is simply not compatible with wikis. He attacks and lies about anyone who crosses him, he's done this all over the WMF-verse. It's all about battle. Sure, he can produce good content, but the disruption ratio is huge, so it's simply not worth the bother. w:Tsar Bomba time: a WMF-wide ban. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 23:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Support Support as, at least, meta indef block, talk/email access allowed. Global lock possible, with local over-ride explicitly allowed through the 'crat trick (double renaming, which delinks account), as was eventually done with Thekohser and Moulton. Merridew is correct, and this continues to be an enormous drain. When Ottava had sysop privileges, he abused them pursuing these personal grudges, see [56] (Gmaxwell is a sysop and checkuser on Commons, and note the single-edit excuse for the block) and, for that matter, [57], purely based on disagreement. Enough. --Abd 14:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not supporting this as such but I think I will express my views on this after all (I've watched it since it arrived).
Where I am active my block log is usually longer than anyone's else because I deal with folk who have no idea how to contribute to the project right from the start. However I am strongly against blocking established users and have only very rarely done so because they have proved that they can contribute something of value.
However when someone such as this user has found arguments with so many people over various wikis and over time it indicates to me that it is likely there are issues with the person concerned rather than with so many other people. The question then is when does the community decide that enough is enough? Whether we have reached that stage yet I am unsure but I guess I would not want to see too many more dramas with this user in the centre of it. --Herby talk thyme 15:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Herbythyme. Wikiversity is ban-averse, and I've been part of finding ways to avoid bans there, and have managed to overturn a few, even controversial ones, with no serious harm resulting. There was no ban proposal on Wikiversity re Ottava, and, here, as can be seen by my other comments on this page, advice of caution, from me, about meta problems. However, when Ottava lost his ops at Wikiversity, he also apparently lost all restraint, and went ballistic. See #Request_review_of_recent_Ottava_activity. Yet I see no sign that Ottava has even been warned here that continued behavior would result in a block. He removed complaint from his Talk page, but complaint is not a warning.
Meta, like other wikis, may be suffering from administrative paralysis, and Ottava encourages this; he's found that if he attacks an admin, the admin will then back off from using tools. See Wikiversity:Recusal for a suggested recusal policy that avoids this problem. Of course, it only avoids it if the community is willing to respect the discretion of an admin who "uses tools while involved," based on immediate referral to the community. --Abd 17:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an old and dead RfC and reviving it by a person who was unanimously desysopped and topic banned at Wikiversity is a sign of major problems. That Jack Merridew, a user who used many accounts to harass users on multiple Wikis and got adminship at Wikisource after stealing my hard work and taking credit for it, would suggest anything is ridiculous. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Still pushing that? You're a liar. Diff on the talk page. *Go Away*. Jack Merridew 11:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The liar here is you, Jack. You were banned for long term harassment. You had to steal my work because you couldn't do any on your own to justify sneaking into adminship at Wikisource. You are a nasty person and why you were ever allowed to edit anywhere when you still do the same nasty tactics you use to do is scary. t isn't a coincidence that John Vandenberg helped Poetlister like you, showing what kind of company you are in. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Ottava never stops pushing anything. It doesn't matter how thoroughly it's been refuted. He'll still bring it up later. --Abd 14:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Again, typical of Ottava. Jack Merridew is not banned on any WMF wiki, and is a sysop on Wikisource. The above is pure ad hominem, evidence-free, and irrelevant to this RfC to boot. Was Merridew ever sanctioned? Sure, on Wikipedia, and that was in 2008, and the ban was lifted, by ArbComm. Is Merridew a friend of Poetlister? Doesn't look like it! Merridew has never been blocked on Wikisource. Ottava? See also [58] and [59]. Notice, at the end of the last noticeboard discussion, Ottava asserts that he has been "100% polite and civil." Can anyone read this RfC, Ottava's own comments, and believe that? Ottava is being allowed to continue his rampage here. How long? --Abd 20:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
"Jack Merridew is not banned on any WMF wiki, and is a sysop on Wikisource" - He was banned on Wikipedia for abusive sock puppetry. During that time, he used my work to justify why he should be given adminship on Wikisource without asking me or notifying me that I was mentioned. That work, found here, represented over 100 hours of my transcribing a document with checking. Jack only added a little "formatting" and then used it to get adminship without telling people that I did the work. He did not do any real work at Wikisource and only made admin off of my hard work. When I first pointed this out, Jack spent 2 years wikistalking me, harassing me, and making nasty attacks wherever he could. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict with below):::::::While you, poor Ottava, have been "100% polite and civil"?[60] What I've seen from Ottava, since he was desysopped on Wikiversity, and I wasn't looking before, has been constant attacks, often over ancient stuff. I noted, above, that Merridew had been banned for a time on Wikipedia. So? And you, Ottava, if this is some kind of proof of anything relevant, what does it say about you? --Abd 01:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
You were banned also, Abd. My point above was that Jack became unbanned through passing off my work with minor changes by him as proof that he deserved to be an admin at Wikisource, which was used to get him unbanned, where he started a long campaign of harassing me. The deceit at both ends and his persistence in following me wherever he can is clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm under certain editing restrictions, which have been wikilawyered to death to result in blocks. That latest one was a doozie. I never dreamed anyone would object to it. Completely outside the intention of the ban, almost the opposite of it, but I haven't bothered to appeal these, I don't even put up unblock templates, I simply don't need to edit Wikipedia. I'm not banned from the site, however. Ottava is. My point. None of this has anything to do with Ottava's behavior here, except as a confirmation that it's not unique to this site. As a sysop on Wikiversity, he needed meta access. He no longer needs it. The cost/benefit ratio has gone through the roof, over the hill, off to the moon, off to Mars. Bye, Ottava. --Abd 03:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I follow *lies* and *disruption*. What, you think that if you keep repeating shite over, and over, and over, again, after it's been bebunked, it's going to sway anyone? At best you're amusing; this is your endgame, and you've epic failed. You're digging your own grave, here. Jack Merridew 02:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Battleground much? Diffs off the talk page: "this is an absurd claim Ottava"; v:User talk:Ottava Rima#Greetings and Salutations, plus tl;dr, your WR attack on me, and an oldid for your v:talk page. I've shared the emails, too. *Begone* — You're a troll. (And John's a bonzer-bloke;) Jack Merridew 21:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
"Battleground much?" What Irony. You've participated in any chance you could to harass me, yet I've never once followed you. You are a cross-wiki harasser who used countless sock puppets to terrorize others. Why you were not locked and why John was dumb enough to steal my stuff to get you adminship, the world will never know. You are and awful person and you proved that you always will be one. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Goodbye, Ottava ;) Jack Merridew 22:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I dislike when I see ban discussions here, and anywhere. People should be focusing in working in content, not on fighting for the most stupid things. Bans are not the only solution. And long discussion like this one, won't provoke anything more but more disruption, that's the reality. --Diego Grez return fire 20:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    Diego Grez is pursuing some strange agenda here. He was the first person on Wikiversity to support a number of Ottava's bizarre actions. The discussion here was long, sure. But then came some brief proposals, which Diego is confusing. I now see why some people were concerned about Diego.... Ottava's behavior has been so disruptive that it's amazing he hasn't been blocked long before now. Ottava has, below, under #Comment from a "small wiki" guy, so thoroughly misrepresented what happened on Wikiversity that he's either trolling to see just how far he can go, or he's literally insane. Either way, it has to stop. --Abd 14:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Its worse than I thought.
Oh, come on... this is exactly what I dislike. You all are creating disruption, and I'm not going to involve myself anymore in all of this crap. And I did not become a custodian anyway. Diego Grez return fire 23:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Kylu[edit]

Proposal 1: ad hominem policy for Meta[edit]

Subject to community approval:

Objections, votes, statements, and arguments which are primarily based on unchangeable aspects of what the other person is or their off-wiki activities which do not affect the project, rather than focusing on activities on the project itself, are forbidden.
Users violating the policy will be first given a warning and their edit reversed. Subsequent violations are preferably escalating blocks, culminating in an indefinite block. Evasion of the block results in an immediate lifetime ban from Meta. Appeals may be performed in the usual fashion.

  • Support agreed The warning should be issued by a neutral administrator. Too often, warnings by editors involved in dispute with a problem editor are considered adequate, when the "problem editor" will naturally discount it. To bring this to this case, if Ottava repeats the behavior described (whether he did it or not!), he should be warned by a neutral administrator, and then blocked if he continues to repeat the behavior. Talk page defense, on his own Talk page, against a charge, should generally not be considered offensive unless egregiously so. Repetition elsewhere, however, would result in a block, either by the warning admin or another, with routine process following if needed. The stuff about "lifetime ban" is unnecessary and excessive, and that should be struck. Socking to evade a ban is already prohibited. --Abd 18:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support support this general civility policy. To the subject at hand, it should discourage attacks on someone's personal beliefs (as opposed to how they present those beliefs in discourse, or how they behave). SJ · talk | translate 09:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Impossible. RFCs by definition focus on users. "Ad hominem" by definition focus on users. You cannot have a ban on "ad hominem" without doing away with RFC. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, as a side note the repercussions of such a thing regarding those like TheKohser and the rest make the proposal impossible. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Meta is not Wikipedia. Rules on Wikipedia are not neccessarily accepted Wikimedia-wide. Generalizations are never applicable. Wikilawyering (and excessive quibbling) are often symptomatic of foolishness. And Ashlee is undoubtedly correct, more media = better. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 15:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support support this policy. I think staying focused on wiki activity and those aspects which are within a community's power to change is a more productive use of time. --darklama 14:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Community exhaustion ban[edit]

Propose a community ban on the individual(s) involved, each with their own section and discussion, with the note that the discussion will be closed at the end of seven days and its effect immediate.

Abd[edit]

Having been subject to bans where the banned behavior was inadequately specified, leading to a huge mess, I'm proposing, first, a meta-proposal: that the RfC develop a description of behavior to be banned. The proposal above, which I supported, only does this superficially (though it does better than some proposals I've seen!). I suggest a series of narrow proposals for specific objectionable behavior, and it is not necessary, here, to establish that Ottava actually did the objectionable thing, since, ideally, Ottava will not be banned as a conclusion of this RfC, this will merely establish community consensus on more specific behavioral limits, which would be subsequently enforced without RfC, per normal ad-hoc administrative decisions. So each proposal can be very specific, and, in fact, if Ottava intends to operate collaboratively here, he could even support such proposals, which would then constitute a kind of promise not to engage in the offensive behavior, and he can do so without admitting that he did it in the past. It would be better, though, if he could admit error, if he has made mistakes, it builds confidence and makes it less likely that an offense will repeat. But actual sanctions will depend on repetition, not on perception of intention at this point.

Further, this RfC could serve as some kind of improved guide to behavioral limits for all users, and the findings here proposed for addition to policy pages, if they are not already reflected adequately there, so there could be value to this that transcends the "Ottava problem." I have little time, but I may review some of the evidence above to extract principles, but anyone can make these proposed specifications. --Abd 19:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I support that--to the extent this RfC helps formulate policy, no one's past behavior should be subject to this discussion's results . That's a classic ex-post-facto decision, though, I'm not sure that current policy is totally insufficient to address everything that's happened here. But anyway, whatever it is, it's more important that we figure out a good way to keep it from being disruptive later than to be punitive towards one individual. As often happens, tendentious editors, controversial subjects, and aggressive vandals each help bolster the regulatory systems which can deal with similar situations later on. Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 02:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment and policy ideas[edit]

On the merits of policy detail, I also think you're right that there needs to be very clear guidelines. A policy which gives cover to vague community witch-hunts is not worth having. It should be a simple but direct guideline that: as long as a user has not been explicitly banned from doing something, they should not be the target of repeated accusations about their motives or behavior. If someone is doing something seen as disruptive or uncivil they should first be asked politely to stop, or simply asked if they were aware of it. Then perhaps one sincere but non-threatening voicing of opinion. That's all, though. If that is not helpful, then the only next option must involve other editors either through a third opinion mediation, wikiquette discussion, or if necessary an RfC. The license to raise critical points about other editors should be limited if it involves their past behavior as suggestive of future precedent, their personal views as suggestive of bias, and their standing in the community if it involves anything except an explicit community ruling.

Examples of civil accusations:

  1. Hey John, I don't know if you realized it but you keep pushing for this policy. It seems like you have a POV. Do you agree?
  2. Well, you don't think you do, but I still see it. I'll leave it there but if I think it's being disruptive I'd like to get another opinion.
  3. I asked for some outside advice from Sue so we could see if there's a better way to resolve this. She agrees that it's not an ideal situation but wants to let you have your say.
  4. Sue wasn't able to fix the problem, so maybe a formal mediation would help. That way you can approach the situation from an even position.
  5. Mediation didn't work, so I brought this RfC. I still see a problem that I want to fix, but I need to community's input and confirmation about whether I'm missing something.
  6. The RfC was insufficient, so either a ban is the only way forward, or an ArbCom case is needed to address this kind of behavior.

Examples of things you shouldn't say:

  1. You've been blocked before for POV pushing. You can't be trusted to be non-biased.
  2. You frequently forget to sign your posts. You can't expect to participate in a discussion.
  3. You don't edit articles enough so you can't weigh in about how to handle them.
  4. You haven't been here long enough, so you can't make a recommendation about what should happen.
  5. Your views are fringe, so you can't be taken seriously.
  6. Your opinions are dangerous, so you can be dismissed.
  7. Everyone knows that you're wrong and several higher-ups have confirmed it. So you can be dismissed (in the absence of diffs or signed-confirmation).
  8. You've defended bad people in the past so you are dangerous and can't be trusted.
  9. Your opinions are dangerous to the Wiki, and you must be stopped.

All of these kinds of statements add heat without light. There are ways to address complicated or contentious situations--and some people are wrong--but these examples usually do as much if not more harm than good. There might be benefit in pointing out how things appear (saying when a spade looks like a spade, giving accused spade a chance to change or respond), but there's little benefit from calling a spade a dick and telling said spade that it's views are poison and it's not welcome here. Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 02:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Request review of recent Ottava activity[edit]

November 26, 2010, Ottava Rima was desysopped on Wikiversity per a Community Review which found him to have lost the trust of the community; a 'crat closed that and came to meta for removal. Ottava contested the decision here. See the request and the discussion, moved to Talk. The Community Review had been filed by SB_Johnny based partly upon a draft that I had written months earlier.

Ottava then attempted a removal of 'crat privilege for SB Johnny with [61]. Again, when this was properly denied, per obvious procedure, he argued tendentiously. In this and other discussions, he has misrepresented Wikiversity policy.

Ottava continued to debate this at Requests for comment/SB Johnny, persisting in an attempt to use meta to make changes at Wikiversity, when available local process has not been followed.

Again bypassing Wikiversity process, Ottava came here to claim that there was a Wikiversity consensus for desysopping me, setting aside the clear requirement for process, discussion period, and a Wikiversity 'crat decision, and again arguing tendentiously (current permalink) against the obvious steward response. While he points to a discussion that could be seen as presenting a consensus, albeit based on way too short a time, to judge that discussion properly requires consideration of the overall situation, the history, the character of those voting (many new or otherwise inactive users are suddenly popping into proposals Ottava has made, there are several open), and whether or not the required "egregious violation of policy," required for desysopping, has been shown. The Wikiversity policy properly and wisely requires a 'crat closing, with a simple routine review by stewards to ensure that it is not just a 'crat acting unilaterally. (And there is room for 'crats to act alone, in an emergency, but I assume stewards exercise caution about emergency desysop proposals. Errors can be fixed, as well. Were my sysop bit improperly removed, any 'crat could restore it, there would be little harm.)

I request that meta administrators review this RfC and the latest developments, for consideration of action to prevent further disruption here. Thanks. --Abd 08:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

See also Requests for comment/Wikisource adminstration problems, filed recently by Ottava, attacking the Wikisource admin structure, similar to his current attempt re Wikiversity. --Abd 14:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

See Ottava's recent edits: "Warning" of Herbythyme and "Notification of intent" regarding Nick1915. Ottava is very active in commenting on steward confirmations, and is threatening to oppose based on Nick's routine closure.

I see no redeeming value to Ottava's participation on meta, and I'm generically averse to bans. Jack's proposal above is for a global ban, which may or may not be needed, but meta is the coordinating wiki and is for fostering cooperation. I've seen users blocked here for far, far less than what has become routine for Ottava.

(Ottava is not banned at Wikiversity, and the most that has happened has been short blocks for incivility. I did block for a year, recently, based on threatening other users with blocks, as documented on the Request custodian action page where I announced my conflict-of-interest block intention and requested immediate review. I still think a year was the right time.... it was, however, really "indef," but the WV interface doesn't allow it, the reasonable alternative, given what I knew, would have been "infinite" -- which is what Ottava himself used as a sysop when he disliked a user with far, far less cause -- and, ironically, SB_Johnny, who is under intense attack from Ottava, on Wikiversity (v:Wikiversity:Community Review/SB Johnny and, here, Requests for comment/SB Johnny, unblocked without setting conditions. That shows how far WV will go to avoid booting disruptive but experienced and previously useful users, Ottava is not the only example. For better or worse.) --Abd 18:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Response 2
As anyone can see, the "Community Review" against me had unanimous consensus to toss it out as inappropriate and heavily canvassed by Abd and SB Johnny, two members who have been found by the community to be disruptive with Abd topic banned from any such discussions for 6 months. Also, the page was "closed" after 3 days whereas policy clearly says 7 is the minimum. It reveals a severe abuse that is common to Abd and SB Johnny. Consensus against Abd s unanimous among Wikiversity as he has shown himself to be highly disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The additional review above is about behavior on meta, with Wikiversity issues being asserted only as background. There is more, which I will add. --Abd 14:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Abd, there is a unanimous desysop of you for outrageous abuse, and a super majority to topic ban you from such discussions for a reason. You make up things all the time, you attack people for no reason, and Wikiversity no longer wants you around to act that way. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Surely that is up to Wikiversity. The comments above are primarily about behavior here at meta. Just a moment ago, Ottava reverted my move of discussion to Talk on the Permissions page, I was following precedent there; I wanted to respond, but extended discussion on the Permissions page itself is disapproved, for obvious reasons. This is pure disruption, and this is the third time, and it's accompanied by attacks on individual stewards, I haven't pointed to much of what is visible, plus Ottava does a lot of his "negotiation" on IRC. Enough is enough, and it's been more than enough. --Abd 17:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
"enough is enough" Yes, enough is enough, which is why you were desysopped and banned by the community. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Strange, I still have tools and I can still edit with my account. Did I die and fail to notice it, still living in my dream? Wow! This claim, even if it were true, is irrelevant here. This shows how Ottava operates, and clearly. --Abd 18:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
You were desysopped and banned by Wikiversity for abuse. The community is done dealing with you. So you come here, lying, crying, and disrupting this place while making wild claims that have nothing to do with reality. You have serious problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I have not been desysopped yet. However, that may happen today, though not necessarily for "abuse," but at the discretion of a 'crat who has been granted that discretion -- he would otherwise be barred from closing -- and he is not supporting a "ban." And this is all irrelevant. This RfC is about your behavior on meta, not about mine on Wikiversity. --Abd 19:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Merely having a flag does not make you rightful owner of it. You haven't been a rightful Probationary Custodian on Wikiversity since January 27. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Q.E.D. --Abd 19:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Abd has finally been desysopped after the community rejected him most thoroughly. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's Ottava's story. Completely irrelevant here. However, that process shows how a massively disruptive user can create, quickly, with a few friends, a deceptive appearance. The closer was SBJ, who was opposed to my custodianship from the beginning, and who was grossly biased, but who was looking for an excuse. I now think that SBJ deliberately allowed Ottava free reign at Wikiversity in order to allow this to happen. Machiavellian. And that's all moot here. I have not opposed the desysop, I thanked Pathoschild for properly approving it, a steward isn't supposed to second-guess the 'crats, and the WV discussion gave, as I've been claiming on Wikiversity, sufficient cover to SBJ for his close, allowing Pathoschild to act. SBJ was already authorized by me to lift the bit on his own discretion anyway, but that would have created no presumption about future candidacies. Instead, he relied upon that train wreck. It doesn't matter if it was abusive or not, however, the form was followed as far as meta is concerned. If I don't like this, any 'crat at WV can fix it. Compare that to Ottava when he doesn't like an outcome.... --Abd 19:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
February 2011[edit]

Filing by Ottava.Current link. Permanent link to current state. Ottava is debating multiple users on the Steward requests/Permissions page, without following page instructions: Please only make requests here after gaining the on-wiki approval of your local community. He presents misleading, wikilawyered interpretations of policy, often contrary to the direct language of the policies, which he selectively quotes to support his self-interested views. Steward requests should be simple and clear, and the Permissions page is not a place to debate. --Abd 18:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

In the filing, Ottava pointed to a week-old version of the Community Review, obviously hoping that a 'crat would not notice the concealing of subsequent !votes, thus allowing his canvassed !votes to predominate. He then argued, after his deception was uncovered, that the 7-day period in the policy is a maximum, contrary to all precedent and policy. (Shorter snow closes occasionally happen, but the norm is that a process stays open until closed, by a closer, the minimum period, and there is no maximum.) The deception is intolerable.

I've seen 'crats fail to notice deceptive arguments, but this is all moot, pure disruption, since any 'crat at Wikiversity could reverse the result of a steward error, steward decisions are not intended to be binding over the local community (unless clearly over a cross-wiki issue). Ottava didn't call attention to the fact, initially, that he is opposed by the entire Wikiversity administrative community, all three active 'crats opposed the desysop, and it was supported by no active users, except, in this case, for me! The closer as protected was another Wikiversity sysop. Ottava's arguing, as well, that I have no judgment, so, in effect, the only active user who supported his proposed desysop, in the end, was one with (he claims) no judgment. Sorry, this was too rich! Oh, what a tangled web .... --Abd 20:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Herostratus[edit]

This is a very long page, and not being a regular Wikimedia contributor I confess I haven't read it all in detail. But I would make the following general suggestion:

  • FT2, I would suggest chilling out. After all, you do have some fairly uh radical positions, and so of course people are going to get excited about that. If you're going to be a radical, you can't have too thin a skin; in fact I would say that "thin-skinned radical" is not a career that would tend to overall happiness, I wouldn't think. So don't worry about it.
  • Ottava Rima, I would suggest chilling out. After all, it's not like the Foundation is going to be like "Well, this FT2 fellow certainly has some cogent points, this is just the kind of contributor to whose ideas we should pay especial attention" or anything. So don't worry about it. Herostratus 14:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Almost none of the RFC statement is about myself. I opened the RFC to discuss the effects of the ongoing behavior against other users (Wnt, SJ, TheDJ, Ocaasi, Xeeron, Alecmconroy, Guillom, ...) and the debate as a whole, including repeated attacks and bad-faith claims.
It evidences Ottava dismissing people with fairly common Wikimedia views as being "fringe POV", multiple good faith users with strong records dismissed offensively as having done nothing for the project, a steward continuing to be accused of abuse despite multiple oversighters confirming his actions as appropriate, invented claims, logs that are claimed to exist but don't appear to and are then shown to no RFC participant but argued as if they exist, and invented claims of support against other users by authority figures (stewards) which appear not to exist either.
These people may have thick skins, but they should still not be talked to this way. Conduct like this in a serious debate is inappropriate. RFC exists to request wider and impartial community views on evidenced concerns. Ottava does not listen well to individual users, believing many of them "fringe", "pov" or "not content contributors". He needs community feedback and the community needs to consider the behavior. I have not asked for any action against the user; my actual request is this:
The community is asked to give thoughtful communal feedback to Ottava on conduct, and to make unambiguously clear what the actual expectations are of him by the community.
FT2 (Talk | email) 17:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thenub314[edit]

I rarely edit meta, and in truth I have not read this entire RfC, which as is comment many places has gotten quite long. Overall while reading through the evidence presented by FT2 I am left with the impression that this entire RfC is a case of people in Glass houses throwing stones.

To explain what I mean reading the first comment linked, at first a bit problematic... on the other hand given that it was in response to a comment that began with "The problem we have with you, Ottava..." gives a fairly good reason for someone to be heated. Particularly since this comment appeared to be in reply to comments by Ottava that are to be constructive, content related, etc.Not to mention that many of the comments made to Ottava involved just as much "[some latin root I wont spell correctly]", discussing whether he was "Kicked off a project". It seems very disproportionate to call only one user out on this topic. Going on from there it seems the conversation snowballs into both sides pointing out the faults of the other.

Do I think Ottava was a bit to gruff from the edits listed above? Yes, in some cases. As most of the other contributors he was replying to. This is just an example of everyone getting upset and heated as they discussed a topic they felt passionately above. My opinion overall is that Ottava was acting no better or worse then the people he was interacting with in that situation, and proposals of community bans seem out of place to me. Thenub314 23:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia:Wall of Text see also, tl;dr - Kylu 03:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it's worth mentioning that the commentary on Ottava's behavior referenced his pattern of accusations and criticism of the POV/standing of others within the community. Responses to that were not intended to be in-kind attacks but simply pointing out that those kinds of comments are not civil or constructive. I think equivocating between someone who does something wrong and those pointing it out appropriately is a mistake. And anticipating a rebuttal, since it was initially Ottava who pointed out that FT2 and others were allegedly doing (or had done something) wrong, his interactions have not been geared towards the resolution of those situations. Instead he has sought to dismiss or marginalize others' views like a cross-examining prosecutor at a trial.
This is very much about how people raise issues and the fact that all editors are "permitted" to meaningfully contribute to a discussion, concepts which Ottava has nearly disregarded in the interest of advancing his strong opinions. The concept of a community ban should not be the focus of this RfC, IMO, but on clarifying policy about accusations of behavior which are basically personal or ad hominem attacks. Ocaasi 09:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
This has been mentioned, above, and I'd like to state (again?) that cases like this are an excellent reason to have a global mediation and arbitration system in place. Preferably such a system would be staffed with multilingual folks who have some history in resolving disputes already. I'll pass on being a member, though. :) Kylu 16:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
But if you're going to have that, you might as well have editorial boards staffed with informed editors mediating disputes about the content of an online encyclopaedia. This is surely unthinkable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.2.230.224 (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2010
There's a slight possibility of having a number of not-currently-cabal-affiliated fair minded (or as close as humanity ever gets) people with dispute resolution experience from various projects who could assist.... I mean, it's a possibility.
As much as it's going to sound anti-wiki, I think I'd rather have people with experience and a good track record of resolving disputes do DR work, rather than people who (from the implication of your word-choice of "editors") are talented at writing articles. We get all kinds, and it's best to put people to work at the things they're good at.
If we're just going to go on a wishing spree, though, give me a computer that has the entire contents of all the world's libraries, feeds from all the major news sources, and an AI with that oxymoron known as "common sense" - Have it run a massive bot network keeping all our articles up to date, newly PD book sources posted to wikisource, new news written up and wikinewsied, prettifying all the various pages everywhere... and adminning the projects with an iron fist, kicking out us pesky humans so we can just enjoy the fruits of its labor. Actually... wishes? Ha, make me 18 again and a multibillionaire instead. Kylu 23:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
There's no reinventing the wheel here. Arbitration is a well established, though somewhat complicated, process on Wikipeida that lets admins comment on editor behavior. It has always been practice for ArbCom not to rule on content issues, so I don't know why this would be any different. As for translation issues, well, what conversation are we having here? Most people speak English by default (no value judgment), but it would be easy to round out the group with a few German speakers, some mixed Europeans, a few Asian speakers, etc. And in situations where language was an obstacle, there could always be someone who just translates... Ocaasi 00:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not so much a language issue, I suppose, as cultural, but I've noticed that various language projects tend to have a different reaction to different things; Basically, we tend to think differently from each-other due to our backgrounds or language. It certainly couldn't hurt to gain a wide spread of potential perspectives in order to better perform this process. Kylu 16:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

SB_Johnny[edit]

Comment from a "small wiki" guy
I'm one of the few (if not the only) "early adopters" of en.wikiversity that's still active and involved as a sysop, so my comment comes from that angle.

We currently have two "globally banned" users who we've decided to welcome. One of them is barely active (but he's also not "against us"), the other is quite active in helping us redefine our policies and providing much-needed comic relief.

I'm not sure what I think about "globally banning" in general (the two cases I've seen and helped over-ride on WV were imposed for political reasons), but it really would help small wikis if people like Ottava needed some local support before being brought in. Small wikis are easily disrupted, and Ottava's background knowledge of the WMF, "connections" in the WMF, and willingness to run to the stewards to over-ride local process really makes it much harder to manage a small wiki than it should be. --SB_Johnny talk 21:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

We had community consensus to remove Abd and we have a strong opposition to you. You desysopped a user without any community discussion. You use WR and email to canvass users on multiple occasions. You harassed users irl by calling them and threatening to call their associates. Nothing you said above about me has anything to do with reality but is part of your long term abuse of Wikiversity that many users recognized. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, Jimbo desysopped you for disruption and abuse while praising me at the same time. You never got over that and have held a grudge ever since. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Ottava's rather odd reply above does a good job of illustrating the point. Advanced wikilawyering should not be a prerequisite for small projects, and for that matter makes things difficult for larger projects (like WS or maybe even Commons). --SB_Johnny talk 21:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Odd reply? You were desysopped for abuse then given ops back without a discussion. That doesn't happen just normally. Your claims lack any merit and are instead the desperate statements of a person who stole power and is unwilling to let it go when the community is against you. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Um, I was "desyssopped" by Jimbo for not doing what Jimbo wanted. I was not (like you) "desyssopped" because the community was upset at my use of sysop tools.
(Somebody please tell me why I should even respond to this guy?) --SB_Johnny talk 00:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
"by Jimbo for not doing what Jimbo wanted" You mean disrupting the community, abusively wheel warring, and treating other people like dirt. If you honestly thought you would have community support to have ops returned you wouldn't have bypassed the community. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Last night, I did the research on this, confirming my memory, but the edit was lost. I'll provide diffs on request.
  • SBJ was acting, in reversing Jimbo's two basic actions, with the approval of the entire Wikiversity community, except for Ottava, as expressed on v:User talk:Jimbo Wales. Ottava provided cover for Jimbo, may have led Jimbo to believe that the community needed his intervention (lately Ottava has been bringing things about Wikiversity "to the attention" of Jimbo, apparently wishing for this again, and trying to get stewards to intervene there. Jimbo's intervention at Wikiversity led directly to the filing of Requests for comment/Remove Founder flag. Ottava thus helped Jimbo shoot himself in the foot. Ottava then ran Wikiversity, for a time, as if it were his private Ottavan Empire.
  • Jimbo did desysop, but then returned the bits. Later (about two weeks), SBJ resigned them, voluntarily. So when he was "given them back," it was as a routine return of bits on request after resignation "not under a cloud." I have my own problems with SBJ, for sure, but he did not "steal power." Ottava knows all this, for sure, unless he's literally insane. He may be. More likely, he's trolling, seeing how far he can go, I've seen this from burned-out users, especially admins, especially if they have fallen from grace. It is, indeed, amazing. An ordinary vandal? Quickly disposed of. Someone who wastes the time of dozens of users, it can go on and on and on. Vandals don't drive away legitimate users, but Ottavas do. The cause for a ban here is very clear, and the misbehavior of everyone else, as Ottava continually claims, is irrelevant. Nobody else is into a full-on attack like Ottava. --Abd 14:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
"with the approval of the entire Wikiversity community" Don't lie. Not one person supported SB Johnny in his actions with many people acknowledging how awful SB Johnny's actions regarding Jimbo on SB Johnny's talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
See Jimbo user talk, cited above. "Entire community," however? I have not reviewed SBJ Talk, and any discussion can attract a few loose cannons; in particular, SBJ's action aroused great fear among some that WV was facing imminent closure, but before SBJ acted, he had very strong support. Ottava, as usual, lies, in the way that paranoids can like. They may believe what they say, but they totally neglect contrary evidence. --Abd 19:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Notice that, above, Ottava completely passes over the fact that he'd presented a radically distorted picture of the events. Regardless of whether or not SBJ had community support, Jimbo had reversed his desysopping action. Ottava left that out, and it radically changes the picture. This is typical of how Ottava lies. On this one, he has no excuse. He must surely know that what was said was true, but he's not interested in truth, he's interesting in winning. At all costs. --Abd 19:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)