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

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

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Moreschi

A couple of case studies of Ottava's approach to content disputes will be set out in detail elsewhere, and while Ottava's ignorance of all things Persian is easily demonstrated, for those interested, it is worth seeing his approach to an area where he is supposed to know what he is talking about: I refer to his dispute with Awadewit (talk · contribs), herself an expert in 18th-century literature, and one of our most respected writers. This could be developed into a whole evidence section if someone has the time and space, but here are a few links: [1], [2], 3 (and 1911 Britannica is reliable? huh?)

For my part, I wish to focus on Ottava's wikipoliticking. The most important pattern to note is the holding of grudges, and the disruption and trauma this entails.

N.B: #wikipedia-en logs referred to below have now been collated and forwarded to arbcom-l.

Case 1

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Ottava for disruption and incivility at WP:WQA. The block was thoroughly discussed at ANI: though many supported it, it ultimately failed to find consensus (50/50 split, roughly, as there has been on most Ottava ANI discussions). Given the fairly widespread community support for the block, even if ultimately it failed to find consensus, most users would perhaps stop and think about why so many people endorsed the block. Not Ottava. Instead, he called for Sarek's recall, a petition that was endorsed by just one other user. Malleus's comment at that thread is particularly noteworthy. He also canvassed for support on #wikipedia-en: I will forward the relevant log to arbcom-l.

Case 2

Chillum (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - the terrible irony here is that is was Chillum who reversed Gwen Gale's block of Ottava in early September! Chillum, however, later made the mistake of turning down Ottava's unblock request after Sarek's block. Ottava's gratitude was shown as follows as he lit fires willy-nilly: [3], [4] [5] [6], accompanied by extensive forum-shopping on #wikipedia-en.

Case 3

Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Of Geogre I will say little: I take a dim view of the socking that got him demopped, and most of the material relating to him can be covered under Bishonen. Whatever his errors, however - which should not be allowed to besmirch the reputation of one of our most thoughtful Wikipedians, ever - he did not deserve this disgusting piece of bile: how Ottava was not blocked for that, I don't know.

On this nonsense - the various attacks on Bishonen ([7][8][9]) seem to go back to [10]: Bish explicitly states she had only one prior (civil) interaction with Ottava prior to that thread. Ottava is, unsurprisingly, exceedingly hostile to civil and well-intentioned advice. As this escalated, I blocked Ottava indefinitely, intending to undo the block once Ottava had committed himself to collegial editing, as there was ample evidence of his disruptive behaviours, even back then (Bishonen, we may note, thought this a little excessive even though she had been the one to initially raise concerns! After an enormous quantity of wikilawyering, he calmed down and even stated my actions to have been valid (!), and later apologized on ANI, once I had unblocked. Depressingly, all this turned out to have been for show, because he was back at it again a month later and was blocked 8 days by Nandesuka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Ever since then he has attacked myself, Bishonen and Nandesuka, who I don't know at all without restraint, starting the wholly spurious Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen 4 as an act of pure vindictiveness, seeing as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen 3 covered virtually the same ground. My IAR deletion of this page was overturned on procedural grounds, only for the RFC to be later redeleted as nobody could be found to certify it.

Miscellaneous

I think you'll see the pattern pretty quickly. Anyone, essentially, who disagrees with Ottava is accused of trying to destroy the 'pedia, and must be urgently topic-banned, blocked, demopped, etc. WP:STICK is key to seeing the problem. The forests of the myriad Ottava complaints are simply too thick: I will link to and briefly summarise as many as I can, but more detailed research will have to be done by those reading this.

Ottava goes to war over page-size...Ottava goes to war over an apostrophe...against Maunus...against Judith...against Scott MacDonald...against rspeer...oh, look, Dbachmann has "destroyed dozens of pages" as well...Ottava goes to war over footnotes in FAs...Ottava against the OED! He's a real linguist!...general battleground stuff...Ottava wages war against copyvio...no, you have to vote my way at arbcom elections...deletion the start of the Geogre feud?...Ottava against Everyking, gets page-banned...if even Judith is taking you to ANI...Excirial thoughtfully goes over Ottava's drama-mongering and threats of sanctions...Jeni, according to Ottava...Your qualifications are lies! Lies!

One pick at random

This was rather hard: the list of respected editors whom Ottava has abused is almost limitless, from Awadewit to Bishonen to Risker to Antandrus to Akhilleus to Dougweller to...you get the picture. But I have chosen his abuse of Dbachmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as the most egregiously stupid. Dieter is, I need hardly say, one of our most prolific contributors ever, and one of our finest in the continued battle for encyclopedicity and against dreck: in fact, when some learned academic comes to write the history of our early years, I am sure he will find a respected space in his tome for Dieter Bachmann. In the space of one talkpage discussion ([11]), Dieter is accused of "destroying dozens of pages", he is told that is "behavior is disgusting", that "everyone knows that you are here to destroy the place and don't even have a defense", that his "above post is an attempt at an insanity plea", and that he has a "flagrant disregard for Wikipedia". Folantin, incidentally, is told that he should "check yourself into a psychiatric ward because you cannot distinguish between completely separate entities". This was after Ottava had created a ludicrous dispute on Persian Empire, to the immense annoyance of everyone with an ounce of clue - not because he knows anything about Persian history - he's clueless - but due to personal vendetta alone. And then he accuses others of being out to "destroy dozens of pages!

This is, of course, complete fantasy. I merely offer it up not to rebut it - the thread speaks for itself - but as an example of the personal attacks, incivility and abuse that respected editors have to put up with when dealing with Ottava. Moreschi (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava on IRC

In the last couple weeks Ottava has abused #wikipedia-en as a forum for attacking his opponents in a venue where they cannot respond. I have sent the relevant logs to arbcom-l, but a few snippets here are permitted, I think. I am an "idiot": "No one likes Moreschi except people who are his pawns", chillum is "one of the most controversial admin who has a long history of problems": in regards to Folantin, "I wish somebody would just ban them" (preceded by a link to another dispute over content), etc. See also SB Johnny (talk · contribs) here and here: apparently the canvassing is not limited to #wikipedia-en.

Evidence presented by Fowler&fowler

Ottava Rima has not created exceptional content

I am contesting the oft-repeated claim that Ottava Rima has made exceptional content contributions. This claim, I note, is the basis for all arguments for special dispensation with regards breaches of civility.

He has certainly produced many pages, such as those turned out by the dozens in the closing days, hours, and minutes of WikiCup (for which all and sundry editors were solicited to do eleventh hour reviews). However, in my view, his contributions—except for a handful involving collaboration with excellent editors—are of poor quality. He is unable to write good English prose, indeed even adequate English prose. More worryingly, he is unable to paraphrase correctly. The latter deficiency, in my view, has created a spate of inaccurately formulated content, which, at some future point of time, will require the attentions of a large cleanup crew. (Here is an analysis of erros in one paragraph from OR's current FAC, The Author's Farce. So confident do I feel about this that I can do this at random for most of OR's "content" contributions.) But let me put my money where my mouth is. Here is some real-time evidence. Please read a current Current FAC review. Contrast Ottava Rima's responses with those of his co-nominator. Note, for example, OR's insistence on "23 and 26 March publications" of a newspaper (instead of "23 and 26 March editions") Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Similar artifice employed to counter content criticism

More significantly for this ArbCom case, Ottava Rima has employed some of the same stratagems to counter objections to his content contributions as he has to counter those to his incivility. He has run to various forums and made all manner of threats. Contrast, for example, Ottava Rima's approach to dealing with a failed FAC nomination with that of his co-nominators. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by SarekOfVulcan

Ottava Rima demonstrates lack of a sense of proportion

I first ran into Ottava on WP:WikiProject Freemasonry, where he asked the project to assess some articles of his that he believed fell under the Project's scope. When told that the biographical article was not considered within the project's scope, Ottava responded that "there needs to be a real freemasonry wikiproject, because this one doesn't deserve the title" -- as his second edit in the discussion, and the third edit anyone had made in it. He later stated that "Real Masons find the man important", because he had found a couple of sources stating it, clearly implying that those opposed to his view were not really Masons.

In a recent FAC Review, Karanacs did not promote the article because there were outstanding criticisms on the text. When complaining on SandyGeorgia's talk, Ottava stated "That FAC went 13 days without any reviews. That is not my fault, and if she is going to hold that against any FAC then I will ask Raul to revoke her right to review because that is really inappropriate."

Ottava Rima does not recognize his own incivility

When the Lord Byron discussion was taken to WP:WQA, I attempted to engage Ottava there, indicating that he might be personalizing the debate too much. When he complained I was defending inappropriate remarks, I listed 16 comments of his, including "You've heard of a library before, right?", "You have no legitimate argument and you pushed absurdities", and "Do you even do anything around here worth while". His response was that "Those comments are not incivil and it would take a complete rewrite of WP:CIVIL and a complete bastardization of common English to make a claim to the contrary." At that point, I blocked him for a week, since I believed that he was unable to work within Wikipedia civility norms at that point, and cited that diff. Ottava's initial unblock request was declined by Chillum, but a second one caused Deacon of Pndapetzim to reduce it to time served with a note that "Abrasiveness was mild".

Evidence presented by Ottava Rima

I will first be putting for some statements about my own actions that only deal with general allegations and do not involve other parties.

My willingness to forgive

Examples of my forgiving others:

• At Mattisse's 3rd RfC
• After disputing with Rjanag, I was still his first RfA supporter
• After disputes with Haiduc, I worked with him to get Nicolo Giraud through FAC.
• I tried to keep Peter Damian from being banned from Wikipedia even though attacked my work on Wikipedia.

My willingness to work with others

I have worked with dozens of editors on expanding pages, fixing pages, editing pages, reviewing their FACs, reviewing their GANs, and other matters.

• DYKs: [12]: Jake Wartenberg, NocturneNoir, PeterSymonds, Res2216firestar, Julian Colton, Ironholds, Malleus Fatuorum, Shoemaker's Holiday, Mrathel, Ceoil, Durova, Anonymous Dissident, Lithoderm, Awadewit, John Vandenberg, Lexo, and others. Over 85 shared DYK credits in which I worked with many users in a coordinated collaborative effort.
• I have worked with many people on GAs but they are not documented in an easy list, but most carry over from the above. Lexo, Alan W, and many others.
• FAs: Ironholds, Anonymous Dissident, Haiduc, Ceoil and Kafka Liz, Malleus Fatuorum and SandyGeorgia and again, and with Mrathel three times: [13], [14], and current [15], and one other current nominee with NocturneNoir. Out of 9 FAs I currently hold with one close, only one was not a collaborative effort. Many of these involved copyeditors or those who committed heavily copy edits in a manner that I do not always agree with, or pushed for weight in areas that I did not agree with, but settled over as part of a compromise.
• For Samuel Johnson, in addition to co-nominees: 7 major vital contributors, 15 people important contributors, and 32 people helped in minor but essential ways. Passed with 32 supports at FAC with one Neutral and one Oppose at the end.

Work at FAC

• [16] - edited 24 FARs and 210 FACs.

My IRC involvement

As many can testify, at best there may be 5 or 6 people that agree with me at wikipedia-en and many, many more that do not. As you can see here, many IRC people in that channel went against me - Ncmvocalist, User:J, Until It Sleeps, Jeni, etc. It would be rather hard for me to canvass in a room filled with people who don't like me, don't agree with me, etc. There is a long history with disagreements between myself and others. My RfA nom was opposed by many from the IRC room such as Mitch32, Majorly, Ironholds, ROUX, and Until It Sleeps before it was withdrawn. On other RfAs, I tend to also be in a different view than the "IRC cabal" group: those oppose include Ironholds, PeterSymonds, Tiptoety, Mitch32, Juliancolton, iMatthew, Backslash Forwardslash, ROUX, Majorly, and Shappy in this example. There is a strong difference between "canvassing" and discussing/arguing about issues at IRC that multiple people there are involved in on both sides. As per my "canvassing" at Wikiversity, SB Johnny and myself were rarely on the same side. Instead, we were at odds with each other quite often, and I resigned from adminship at Wikiversity after he called me an idiot.

Folantin and Moreschi's relationship

• [17] Folantin and Moreschi share 194 delete votes at AfD. Examples of AfDs with others in WP Deletion: Elaragirl 53 and 11, Panoptical 2 and 0, NeoFreak 8 and 2, Subwayguy 2 and 1, Eusebeus 19 and 12, and DGG 98 and 52

• [18] Most edits to each other's talk pages.
• Members of WikiProjects: Deletion and Opera
• [19] Major editors to FTN
• Combating nationalism: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]
• A sample of ANI co-op: 2007 Jan, April, June, [26], Oct, Nov, 2008 Jan, May, [27], June, July, Aug, Sept, Dec

Encounters:

• 1st: [28] - Swift's printers DRV
• 2nd: Moreschi's indef block
• 3rd: Ludovico Ariosto. Edit war: [29], [30], [31]. Talk page and FTN. Geogre defending my stance.
• 4th Itsmejudith's RfA
• 5th My RfA with edit warring: [32], [33], [34], [35].
• 6th Antandrus's talk
• 7th 18th century
• 8th Persian Empire blanked and edit warred: [36], [37], [38], [39], etc. Discussion and Lack of consensus for blanking page. Misc. [40]
• 9th Oscar Wilde at ANI
• 10th [41] Bishonen RfC. ANI on it.
• 11th Ludovico Ariosto discussion [42] with no answer.
• 12th Sanction proposal

Folantin attacking my Wikiversity contribs: [43], [44], [45]

Moreschi attacks my faith and real life work: [46], [47], [48]

My involvement on Persian related pages dates back to before November 2008. Akhilleus, dougweller, and others defend ChrisO's actions relating to the matter.

Persian related matters not listed elsewhere: [49]

My "Philosophy" page

[50] Created when I started my voluntary mentorship and kept after it disbanded. The page was created for people to express concerns about me without any fear of response or reprisal. It was intended to allow people to point out where I have failed in specific areas. Folantin mocks and Dbachmann registers the mocking. Politizer and Doug Coldwell both had problems with me and both used the page to the benefit of all parties and our problems were quickly resolved.

Geogre's sockpuppetry

Please see the now deleted Bishonen 4 RfC for evidence of Bishonen knowing that Geogre had a sock puppet for a very long time, aiding that sock puppetry, hiding that sock puppetry, and not doing anything to stop an admin with a sock puppet in edit wars, ban discussions, deletion of pages, and other forms of harassment. Please also note the intersections of this sock puppetry, including the April 2008 DRV, Moreschi's indef block of my account all listed above, Moreschi deleting the RfC out of process and my being blocked for restoring an RfC which had no AfD or correct CSD which would have made any prohibition of restoring it.

Final evidence

As Jane Austen once wrote: "You expect me to account for opinions which you choose to call mine, but which I have never acknowledged."

Evidence presented by Jehochman

Nothing further to add

The record regarding my actions is clear enough. I have nothing further to say about them. Ottava and I had have discussed things and it is my intention to lift the civility restriction within a few weeks if there are no further issues. I have stated that the Committee should look into Ottava's allegations and finally settle them one way or the other.

Evidence presented by Folantin

General comments

Ottava Rima clearly has a lot of free time on his hands. Some of it he uses to write articles, some to social network on talk pages and IRC, but he spends all too much of it picking fights with other editors, engaging in interminable ad nauseam arguments and generally violating WP:BATTLEFIELD by bearing long-term grudges. He boasts about his own contributions while disparaging those of other editors. Something needs to be done to show he is not above the law and stop him wasting other users' time.

Ottava's grudge against me

Ottava has had a grudge against me all year because we were involved in an argument on Talk:Ludovico Ariosto in December 2008/January 2009 (and related Fringe Theories Noticeboard Thread [51]). When Ottava began to argue that Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur was a work of Renaissance poetry I dismissed him as a time-waster and the argument came to a close.

His failed Request for Adminship (April 2009)

[52]. Ottava claimed he would not badger opposers [53]. I opposed. Just before the RFA ended he posted attacks on his opponents so they would have no chance of replying (these attacks were reverted by Bureaucrat Rdsmith4, [54] with the following comment [55]).

List of attacks: [56]; [57]; [58]; [59]; [60]; [61]; [62]; [63]; [64].

On me, Akhilleus and Doug Weller (alleged collusion) [65], [66].

Ottava talks about his grudge against me (June 2009)

Ottava discusses me on a talk page as one of the "people he hates" [67][68] [69] (The last comment is bizarre as Moreschi never voted on his RfA).

Wikistalking, harassment and assumptions of bad faith on Talk:Persian Empire

August 2009: Ottava stalked me to Talk:Persian Empire. He has made 252 comments there, more than he has made to any other article talk page. His shocking ignorance of the most basic facts of Iranian history (long but non-exhaustive list here) proves he wasn't interested in the content. His very first edit to the talk page shows his true motivation: pursuing a personal vendetta against me. He wants me banned: [70] Ottava poisons what has been a civil discussion with bad faith accusations of edit-warring, POV-pushing and vandalism against those he disagrees with.

Further attacks on me and calls for bans: [71]; [72]; [73]; [74]; [75].

As part of his vendetta, Ottava has filed two ANI complaints [76] [77] and an RFArbitration against me [78].

Ottava can't decide which conspiracy I'm part of

Since April he has accused me of being part of a cabal at least six times, although the membership of this alleged conspiracy is constantly changing:

• April: myself, Akhilleus, Dougweller [79], [80].
• August: myself as part of WikiProject Georgia [81][82]
• Early September: ("five vandals") myself, Fullstop, Dbachmann, Alefbe, Kurdo777 [83]
• Late September: (now it's a "group of 9 members") – "Moreschi, Dougweller, Antandrus, Dbachmann, Folantin, Fullstop, Itsmejudith, and others." [84] Plus Paul B [85]
• Previous ArbCom: myself, Dbachmann, Antandrus, Itsmejudith, Akhilleus, Gwen Gale, Jehochman, Fullstop [86] [87]
• Latest ArbCom: myself, Akhilleus, Dbachmann, Moreschi [88]

I'm not going to bother refuting these fantasies. I barely know some of the people listed. The WikiProject:Georgia allegation was particularly despicable. Ottava must simply have looked at my user page and seen the project userbox then made up some ad hoc slander that I couldn't edit Iranian articles neutrally (I'm not even from the region). The funny thing is I spent 10 days this April engaged in an argument with an ethnic POV-pusher who wanted Shah Abbas the Great's mother to be Georgian rather than Iranian, in spite of what the most up-to-date sources said [89].

Responses

So Ottava has proved I’ve worked with Moreschi in the past? That’s not a secret. And "combating nationalism"? What a terrible crime. I know I would have been better off spending all that time and effort on Wikipedia office politics and schmoozing on IRC rather than trying to stop real world politics distort the accuracy of our encyclopaedic content.

The flaws with your conspiracy are: Moreschi never voted in your RFA (5), Moreschi never took part in (6), (7), or Talk:Persian Empire (8) or commented on Oscar Wilde (neither have I) (9), or (11). And you think voting for Itsmejudith was because of you rather than because s/he was an ideal candidate? Interestingly, looking back at that RFA I see you made up some similar ad hoc slander about Itsmejudith and Pascal Tesson being meat puppets. [90] [91] [92]

BTW Here’s a full list of the people who have disagreed with you over Ariosto apart from myself and Moreschi: Dougweller, Itsmejudith, The Hand that Feeds, Dbachmann, Akhilleus, Paul Barlow, Mathsci (see [93]) and – most recently – Ettormo [94] and Drmies [95] (“Sorry Ottava, you’re clutching at straws”). Now either they’re all part of a cabal or it could be there is a flaw in your argument. (I know you canvassed several times on IRC over that discussion but nobody turned up on-Wiki to agree with you). As for "mocking expertise", here you are on Professor John Beer [96].

The many, many people describing your behaviour in the same negative way at this Arb case, the previous RFAR and numerous ANI threads could all be part of a plot against you or it could be that they are offering objective commentary on your actions.

Evidence presented by Elen of the Roads

Said my piece

I have said my piece [97] and won't take up space repeating it. I know others wish to focus on wikipoliticking, and Ottava wishes to focus on his block log, but I would like consideration to be given to also looking at interaction with other editors of the kind who don't have AN/I on their watchlist, and suggesting remedies which would encourage civil exchanges.

Evidence presented by RegentsPark

The Byron move request

The one episode I'd like to bring to your attention is the Byron move request. I spend a bit of time at the requested moves pages, closing moves, correcting requests, stuff like that, and came across a request to move George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron to Lord Byron. It so happens that I like the common name policy and, concluding that the request had merit, I first included some statistics from jstor in a comment [98], [99], then asked a question [100] and then, a day later, explicitly supported the move request [101]. All conducted, I can confidently state, in a spirit of inquiry, well supported by explanations and references to policy, and with the utmost politeness. Ottava responded with this starting with the phrase "this is completely bogus" and then accusing me of (a) lying and (b) 'playing games'. I was taken aback by that response. But, I politely asked Ottava if his 'rant' was really called for [102], and tried to explain further [103]. His response [104] includes straightforwardly proved that you were spreading blatant falsehoods. It was downhill from there.

Frankly, though the entire episode was off-putting and an unnecessary aggravation, I can live with it (although I must admit that I do not come to wikipedia in search of gratuitous unpleasantness). However, his repeated claims that it was I who was being uncivil and should be banned appeared either delusional or deliberate. Much later, I discovered that not only had he been temporarily blocked for this lack of civility, but the matter had also been discussed on WP:WQA and User talk:Ottava Rima. In these discussions, his repeated assertions that he had never violated AGF was equally delusional or deliberate (see 'playing games' and 'blatant falsehoods' above) We all get angry and say things that we later regret but it is this complete inability to introspect about his own behavior and to see that need for regret that bothers me about this incident. Unpleasantness, especially of the gratuitous sort, works directly against the objective of making this an inviting place, a place where editing should be a pleasure and not a drag.

Evidence presented by Chillum

Many warnings by many people

In the past 6 months Ottava has received 29 warnings regarding his behavior from 25 different Wikipedia users on his talk page. This pattern goes back much further, but I decided to draw the line at 6 months as it is enough to demonstrate the pattern.

1. 01:38, 9 June 2009 - Warned by Roux Regarding false accusations, asking for evidence of accusations
2. 19:17, 28 June 2009 - Warned by Chillum Regarding issuing warnings not based in policy
3. 01:10, 1 July 2009 - Warned by Caspian blue Regarding false accusations
4. 06:05, 11 July 2009 - Warned by Philcha Asking Ottava to calm down
5. 16:42, 14 July 2009 - Warned by Auntie E Asking for evidence of accusations
6. 00:08, 15 July 2009 - Warned by SB_Johnny Regarding false accusations
7. 17:11, 16 July 2009 - Warned by Ksempac Asking Ottava to "slow down a bit on the name-calling"
8. 21:35, 1 August 2009 - Warned by Mattbuck Asking Ottava to "calm the fuck down (irony intentional)" and "stop insulting everyone who disagrees with you"
9. 04:57, 3 August 2009 - Warned by Wikidemon Regarding a WP:WQA report filed against Ottava
10. 16:18, 10 August 2009 - Warned by Alan16 Regarding "empty threats"
11. 18:57, 24 August 2009 - Warned by Lar about threatening to phone a Wikipedian's school over a content dispute. "What university do you claim to study at, because I would really like to make some phone calls about you."
12. 04:32, 4 September 2009 - Warned by Jeni Regarding an ANI post about incivility by Ottava[105].
13. 19:30, 4 September 2009 - Warned by Antandrus Requesting that Ottava view Wikipedia as a collaborative environment, rather than a confrontational one
14. 21:15, 5 September 2009 - Blocked by Gwen Gale Community consensus later determined that the block was not needed, though numerous editors expressed the behavior was not appropraite. Unblocked by Chillum
15. 22:43, 5 September 2009 - Warned by Chillum As a condition of the unblock Ottava was urged not to continue with disruptive behavior
16. 01:40, 11 September 2009 - Warned by Akhilleus Regarding feeling intimidated by Ottava
17. 18:14, 16 September 2009 - Warned by Cirt Regarding the use of a harsh tone
18. 21:27, 19 September - Warned by Rspeer Regarding comments made by Ottava to Rspeer
19. 10:15, 22 September - Warned by Itsmejudith Complaining about a harsh tone and incivility
20. 00:54, 24 September 2009 - Warned by Antandrus Regarding a "threat by e-mail to have my desysopped", bullying, and empty threats.
21. 14:57, 24 September 2009 - Warned by Pedro Asking Ottava to stop "flogging a dead horse"
22. 13:20, 25 September 2009 - Warned by Jehochman A warning about Ottava's ongoing pattern of incivility and notification of a community sanction[106](The one being discussed in this case I believe).
23. 13:31, 9 October 2009 - Blocked by Sjakkalle For "disruptive behavior"
24. 20:18, 10 October 2009 - Warned by UnitAnode Regarding harassment of User:Bishonen
25. 01:00, 11 October 2009 - Warned by Uncle G Final warning for disrupting noticeboards
26. 14:16, 13 October 2009 - Warned by Akhilleus Regarding false accusations
27. 04:05, 27 October 2009 - Blocked by SarekOfVulcan For numerous violations of civility
28. 07:23, 2 November 2009 - Warned by Jehochman Final warning for personal attacks
29. 05:52, 4 November 2009 - Warned by Georgewilliamherbert Concerns that Ottava's "behavior at ANI is becoming disruptive and exhausting the community patience" and urging him to "take some time and take a step back"

Evidence presented by Wikidemon

I don't regularly interact with Ottava Rima or edit in his article space, nor have I followed the drama surrounding this editor to date. I look back on the following as an unpleasant chance encounter.

Ottava Rima disrupted his own deletion discussion

In July OR nominated[107] the 29 minute-old[108] National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts for deletion. He and others considered the subject non-notable news or WP:NAVEL-gazing. OR single-handedly argued with, abused, and provoked nearly every editor who posted a "keep" vote. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts OR rails at editors' "faulty" understanding, "generalized ignorance", "complete disconnect from reality", "utter abuse of the human language", "you have already lost any respect", statements "far beyond absurd", "crazy ideas", "ignorance of our guidelines" from people who "do no understand the word 'ignorant'". Beyond garden variety insults there is process gaming: announcements rejecting each keep vote as invalid, accusations of not reading the policy pages or article under discussion, calling for an editor who accused him of incivility to be blocked for "false allegations". The nomination received an early administrative "keep" close,[109], which OR reverted.[110] The article was re-closed, OR filed a DR, and it was relisted (see here).

I was unaware of the bear in the room when I first introduced myself with a WP:SNOW keep vote. OR responded that I do not know how AfD works, and that my vote "is discounted" because I was wrong about the reliability of sources.[111] User:Nathan pointed out, as other editors had elsewhere, that it was not OR's call to disallow votes, that OR should be more "gentle" in his responses, and that he should not offer negative assessments of other editors.[112] I ignored the mild personal attack, explained what I meant by "SNOW", and said in more detail why I thought the sources established the subject as notable.[113] OR responded that I was admitting I hadn't read the page or AfD discussion, that my vote was unacceptable, and that I "haven't a clue what you are even talking about".[114]

The repetitive nonsensical accusations and legalistic pronouncements seemed to fit a dysfunctional pattern I had seen elsewhere. Insulting someone who disagrees with your AfD nomination is a losing argument and turns everyone off. Sometimes it works to sternly tell editors who do this to pipe down -- they obey not because you ask but because they realize they are alone out on a limb and further argument will be fruitless. So I admonished OR on the talk page, gave him a civility warning, and told him that it was my last notice before reporting him on an appropriate board. OR responded with more abuse.[115] I did not want to continue a flame war on the deletion page, and WP:WQA seemed like the least inflammatory, most constructive place, so without further ado I filed there.[116]

OR sank my WQA report on his behavior by misbehaving

The WQA report is also interesting: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive68#Ottava Rima on AfD. OR called for me to be blocked perhaps a dozen times, and played a strange game by declaring that because he had phrased things just right (by his reasoning, which I cannot figure out) he had not actually insulted anyone or broken civility guidelines. That last tactic seemed to be one of those classic grade school "I didn't say you were retarded, I just said you act retarded" insults. My stern, no-nonsense tone there is deliberate because I hoped that would get through to him, and I was not going to get sidetracked into defending myself from tit-for-tat attacks on me or far-fetched arguments that he had not been uncivil.

OR did not offer the slightest admission or recognition that his behavior upset others, or any attempt to listen, despite the near unanimity (everyone but MF, below) of the community in condemning his behavior. He was completely incorrigible. The WQA was going nowhere and it was clear OR would not be warned officially to stop insulting other editors, so I withdrew.

A couple interesting points that may bear some review. First, OR claimed at WQA to have the support of several Arbcom members with whom he had spoken about the WQA case. If so they should recuse and disclose their involvement, but it seems doubtful that it happened. Second, Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) showed up as OR's only defender, with a series of over-the-top (and completely off-topic) insults and accusations. MF seems based on comments elsewhere to share OR's conceptual disdain for civility policy, and he has had a number of civility run-ins involving a style of attack remarkably similar to OR's. I wonder if this bears treatment in the same case here as OR.

I chalked this up to the unfortunate game some have learned that by behaving belligerently enough, they make themselves so unpleasant to deal with that nobody will oppose them. I certainly won't. This is not my issue. Better let people like this waste a minute of my time than try to do something and have them goad you into wasting an hour.

Hope this helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Rschen7754

Preface

This is what I understand the case to be about: whether Ottava Rima should have editing restrictions placed on him. I have some concerns which I will present to help the ArbCom address this question. If I have misunderstood the case, please forgive me.

Ottava has brought up some irrelevant issues to influence a RFA to fail

I'll keep this brief. I point out the RFA of Davemeistermoab: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab and Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab. In it, Ottava Rima and Peter Damien make accusations against Dave of original research, poor grammar, plagiarism, and canvassing. This borders on libel, and I think the ArbCom should be made aware of this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

See Arcayne's comment in the same section for the concerns about plagiarism and why I mention that here. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Antandrus

Ottava Rima's bullying and abusive behavior

Ottava Rima bullies other editors until he either gets his way or wears them out and pushes them out of his way. I will show several cases where he has done this, with different results. Sometimes people give up in exasperation; sometimes they push back; sometimes they lose their temper; sometimes an admin steps in and tries to stop Ottava Rima's bullying. It never works. I became involved in this when I stepped in and tried to stop it [117], [118]. You can see how well that went: he completely fails to assume good faith, going instead straight to ad hominem argument. The following evidence will show that Ottava Rima's behavior is bullying and abusive, and in spite of his abundant wikilawyering to the contrary, completely out of compliance with Wikipedia policy. In a collaborative environment such as Wikipedia, such behavior is poisonous, and those behaving that way must be removed from the project. If they stay on, they must acknowledge their behavior, resolve to change, and operate under strict sanction guarding against recidivism. But I must note that we already tried this, with obvious results.

One further note: Ottava Rima's conduct should be the only issue we address here. He has a habit of trying to divert attention from his conduct to his contributions to the encyclopedia, which are a completely separate issue and irrelevant to this case. According to Wikipedia policy, it does not matter whether an author writes fine articles or merely makes minor edits; we grant no exemption to any editor from compliance with our basic civility, no-personal-attacks, and assume-good-faith policies. If I am mistaken, and some editors do get special treatment and more lenient application of policies based on what they contribute, then we need to codify that in the policies themselves.

Bullying of Maunus. Maunus had disagreed with Ottava on ANI, to which Ottava responded on Maunus's talk page: "This is 100% absurd. ... Constant edit warring it into a redirect is classic blanking vandalism.... Your comments are so unbelievably absurd that they surely must be a mistake. ... I will be calling for your desysopping when this goes to RfAr ... allowing you to have any access to any buttons is clearly dangerous. ... you are not here for the betterment of the encyclopedia ... your comments are destructive to the encyclopedia. There was a clear consensus against this vandalistic action ... You fail to recognize it in a very dangerous manner ... And empty threat? I've been involved in many people being desysopped for less than what your actions are. Your actions are completely destructive and show not only a lack of understanding of the subject but a complete denial of some of our easy to understand policies."

Here his bullying campaign versus Alan16 begins – for, get this – supposed incorrect use of an apostrophe. Keats' or Keats's? Get it right, or you are trolling! Here is the full thread, which includes Ottava saying "You are verifiably incorrect and WP:FRINGE at the very least ... You are acting as if you are some kind of expert with mystical truth supporting you ... you are here trolling and the last post is a trolling post. ...You are here because your mother told you something and it turned out to be wrong. ... I get into these situations - standing up against people who want to push their own strange claims in defiance of what Wikipedia stands for, and that is why I have always prevailed while such people were removed from power and pushed out."

Bullying of Itsmejudith. She has disagreed with Ottava on the RS Noticeboard. "... I will start up a section asking for you to be topic banned because your understanding is so flawed it is disruptive ... clearly inappropriate ... you wont stop." Read the whole thread; it's not long, and contains numerous examples of his threats, conspiracy allegations, and behind-the-scenes well-poisoning. He says to me, " Antandrus, you have already gone way too far and ArbCom has more than enough information to verify that your behavior is completely unacceptable", which I happily leave to your judgement.

Bullying of Rspeer. Ottava builds strawman arguments, with a side helping of threats of recall, desysop, RFC, and so forth. Rspeer several times attempts to de-escalate, and in doing so shows admirable restraint.

Bullying of Paul Barlow and Jezhotwells on the RS Noticeboard, with characteristic self-aggrandizing bombast: "You guys go to push this forward and I will ask AN for blocks for pushing such nonsense." "My record in the articles on the field verifies my knowledge. I even have an FA on a biography of a Victorian individual ..."

When the topic is Bishonen or Geogre, the abuse machine goes on full blast. If this personal attack – on one of our most valued long-term contributors – is not shocking enough, look at what he says about Geogre. "...I don't mean it in jest. You spend your life harming others and you need to be put down." Do we need people like Ottava Rima editing our encyclopedia? Is Ottava's interaction style in any way compatible with a collaborative environment? Is this person not treating Wikipedia as a gigantic battlefield?

If you are not yet sufficiently horrified, here is what he said about John Kenney. When asked to redact, he does so, but instead of apologizing or letting it go, he promptly goes to Malleus's talk page to boast about having found "a great new Essjay candidate", complete with a link to the unredacted version. Clearly he thinks he did nothing wrong here either!

Arbitrators, please do the right thing here. We cannot allow abusive users to carry on in this way; the community has shown itself unable to stop the abuse; Ottava's behavior drives away good editors, contributes to the deterioriation of our standards of discourse, wastes a massive amount of the time of our volunteers, and he has never shown any hint that he knows he is doing anything wrong. Antandrus (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence by Bishonen

Attacks

Plenty of evidence has already been posted on this page exemplifying Ottava Rima's conspiracy theories, grudge-hugging, and assumption of almost comically bad faith. I won't join in providing many such examples here, since my statement at Ottava's previous call for arbitration some six weeks ago is just as relevant today as it was then, and has lots of diffs and ANI threads. A link to it will serve the purpose.

To bring my evidence up to date, I'll just add an ANI thread from October plus an incident from October which involved Ottava (largely) and myself (in a supporting role). I made a small copyedit to the Drapier's Letters, an article about a work by Jonathan Swift which I'd come across on the "FACs needing feedback" list on SandyGeorgia's's page. The 18th century is my academic specialty, and I looked at the article with interest, and improved (as I thought) the rhetorical balance of the intro by removing six words of less than relevant information.[119]. (In my opinion. YMMV.) Carelessly, I failed to realise it was Ottava's baby—didn't check the History—or I wouldn't have touched it, as it was hardly an important edit. I explained my reasoning on the talkpage and invited other editors to revert and discuss if they disagreed.[120] Or that's what I thought I did... but perhaps, in reality, I inappropriately removed things while making patently absurd comments in an area where I had a long history of damaging articles and attacking them in order to harass Ottava Rima? That was Ottava's take on my edit, and he waged instant war against my harassment: [121] [122], [123]

In fact, my comments and other people's comments on Ottava's 25 Sept request remain so relevant that it's a mystery to me why a majority of arbs rejected that request six weeks ago, leaving the victims of Ottava's hailstorm of rotten tomatoes [124] to cope as best they can — while they have now embraced this request with something like enthusiasm. Anyway... enough evidence will surely be provided, without further input from me, of Ottava's attack mode.

Untruths

Ottava's invective is in focus on this page, but something else is apparent as a minor motif in many statements, namely that Ottava invents "facts" at random. When Sjakkalle, who blocked Ottava over his RFC/Bishonen [125]—and who I've never had speech with in my wiki-life — becomes on Ottava's talkpage "one of Bishonen's friends Sjakkalle"... and when Gwen Gale, who I know very slightly indeed, also becomes my Ottava-friend ("Gwen Gale has a long relationship with both Bishonen and Antandrus, making friendly comments on both of their talk page for a very long time" [126] ... oh, and when I've been persistently "harassing" editors who are total strangers to me, then something is wrong. The point of these inventions appears to be that my new friends have been blocking Ottava at my secret behest and vengefully harassing him on my behalf. I don't know JTrainor, but I see that in Ottava's "Bishonen's imaginary friends" fantasy, JTrainor will do anything for me! (/me giggles shyly. )

Remember Ottava's many claims in his 25 September request for arbitration about who is a "meatpuppet" of who? [127] "[Gwen Gale] is close friends with Antandrus" ... ItsmeJudith's "close relationship with Moreschi"... "I did not realize that Antandrus and Folantin were close friends"... "Jehochman has worked closely with Akhilleus... shows clear evidence of meatpuppetry"...Remember the users who protested against that unexpected expansion of their wiki-social life: summarized on this page by Folantin's terse section Ottava can't decide which conspiracy I'm part of?

No matter what sanctions, short of banning, that the ArbCom decides on in this case, I urge the committee to include some remedy which restrains Ottava from posting downright falsehoods. Something like Ottava is not permitted to fabricate facts on wiki, you know? Or Ottava is placed on "truth restriction", or Ottava is not to claim users have a "long history" of some abuse without being prepared to offer at least one diff from that long history. [128] Completely unfounded claims pulled out of a hat, the way Ottava does, are quite unusual on Wikipedia, is my impression. The consequence of that may be that, before Ottava's victims know where they are, outsiders could be believing the claims and noting them down for future reference. "Aha, Sjakkalle, a friend of Bishonen, that's useful to know"— because this is a place where one tends to believe that which is confidently stated as truth. Of course I don't consider it a slur to say I'm friends with Sjakkalle or JTrainor — I'd be delighted to be — but it's a different matter to have falsehoods about it put forth as people's secret reason for "harassing" Ottava Rima.

It Was Not a Coincidence

And finally, the quality, the worthwhileness, of the entire encyclopedia is compromised by my presence, haha! [129] By me! Memememememememememe! Clickclickclickclick on the linklink! [/me cackles dementedly, dons tinfoil hat. ] Bishonen | talk 16:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC).

A propos of Ottava Rima's evidence

"Please see the now deleted Bishonen 4 RfC for evidence". Unfortunately only admins can access deleted pages, but in case any non-admin is interested in Requests for comment/Bishonen 4, just let me know and I'll mail you a copy. Bishonen | talk 22:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC).

Evidence presented by User:Jtrainor

[130]. Ottava basically rushed to WP:WQA [131] as fast as he could in an attempt to intimidate me and Unitanode. There's also his conduct with regards to Chillum, but that's better documented by those involved. Jtrainor (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Taivo

Insults and Incivility Directed at Experts in Field

I wrote this at Talk:Linguistics. Ottava responded with this insult not just to me, but to the university where I received my doctorate. My comment was backed up with this, this, this, and this from other professional linguists. Even after being insulted by Ottava, my own response remained civil. After all the linguists supported my position, Ottava then responded again with this further remarkable insult to the collective professional linguistic opinion, claiming to have more educational expertise in the field than anyone else speaking (several of whom are professors of Linguistics at major US universities) (here he admits that his expertise is not really linguistics, but philology, and the vast majority of his edits are in literary criticism which have nothing to do with linguistics). And even with that, the linguists' responses to Ottava's insults remained civil and respectable. Despite the linguists' continued civility, Ottava continued to hurl insults here and here at our credentials and academic integrity. This discussion at Talk:Linguistics continued on, but the actual linguists in the discussion began ignoring Ottava and he continued throwing insults despite the linguists' continuing civility as here and here. Towards the end of Ottava's contribution, s/he became less insulting, but there was a stretch cited above where his/her behavior was insulting and definitely uncivil. (Taivo (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC))

Evidence presented by LtPowers

My interactions with Ottava are more or less entirely restricted to the Lord Byron incident, which was meticulously laid out by Elen of the Roads in his/her opening statement here. I also started the related WQA thread, although I opined on his talk page that I thought the block (by SarekOfVulcan) was unnecessary and not the intended result of the Wikiquette Alert.

That said, I wanted to elaborate a little bit on a few of the points laid out by Elen of the Roads.

Ottava Rima tries to suppress dissent from very early in a discussion

The very first comment after I proposed moving George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron to Lord Byron was from Ottava. [132] Right from the get-go, we see a simple negation of my claim that "Lord Byron" is the common name; although he cites his collections as evidence, I can hardly verify that myself. He then caps it with the simple claim that I am wrong -- and not just wrong, but "blatantly wrong", as if I should have known better than to even bring up the suggestion. That, in my very first-ever interaction with Ottava Riva.

The implication that the discussion should have ended with that initial pronouncement from Ottava is made explicit later on. [133] ("There is no debate. If you want to continue wasting your own time, you can feel free. But there is no justification that can be used and that was made clear from the beginning." In other words, Ottava is right and I am wrong -- so wrong that I can't even justify my position.)

We then know from Elen of the Roads' evidence that Ottava considered my and others' continued disagreement in the face of his (believed) clearly superior evidence to be intentionally disruptive and worthy of blocks. [134] Needless to say, I found this disturbing; it had a chilling effect on my future contributions.

Ottava Rima uses his expertise as leverage in a discussion, and does so in an aggressive manner

There's nothing wrong with explaining one's credentials in a discussion; I'm under no illusions that non-experts have just as much grasp of an issue as experts do. However, utilizing one's credentials in an attempt to suppress debate, as Ottava did [135] is excessive and comes across as both self-importance and belittling the opinions of others.

Ottava repeatedly claims that people who persist in disagreeing with him are intentionally disrupting Wikipedia

Mounds of evidence of this are found above, but I believe this diff [136] encapsulates the whole thing as well as any single diff could. Denial of incivility? Check. Accusations of incivility in return? Check. Claims of tendentiousness? Check. Tenuous claims of personal attacks? Check. Accusations of trolling because the editor wasn't persuaded by Ottava's arguments? Requests to stop the discussion because Ottava is right? Statements that other editors have no basis on which to make their arguments? Claims that other editors ought to be banned/blocked? Musings about another editors value to the encyclopedia? Accusations of contempt for Wikipedia's standards because of disagreement with Ottava's interpretation of those standards? Implication that one should leave Wikipedia due to that supposed contempt? All check, and all right there in that one short paragraph.

Evidence presented by {You}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.