Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Ban Appeals Subcommittee appointments

Announcement

Can Ottava come back?

Hello ArbCom,

As you may know I have little knowledge of appeals processes and other paperwork, so I'll ask you in the simple-minded manner you can expect from me: can Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) come back? It's been a couple of years since a request was filed, and I don't even know if it is my place to ask for this, but I can't tackle all these literary articles by myself in between J-pop and K-pop and whatnot. I don't even know how to write a decent plot summary, and Ottava does. So please? Drmies (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Disclosure—I'm the one who suggested this, as Ottava's input would be genuinely valuable to Drmies's forthcoming work on Milton. You all presumably know my arguments in favor of unblocking from 2011. The reasons for converting OR's 1-year block into a permanent ban could be summarized as "he's irritating and refuses to admit he's wrong even when it's clearly the case, and sometimes has an exaggerated sense of his own importance"—if this were applied consistently about 50% of Wikipedia, 75% of Arbcom and 100% of the WMF would be sitebanned. If he comes back and starts acting up again, I'm sure there are plenty of people more than happy to kick him out again. – iridescent 21:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  (Yes, I know this is the wrong page for this—whoever moves this, feel free to move my reply as well) – iridescent 21:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Has he asked? I'm not against the idea but would prefer if there were some specific conditions laid out first. --regentspark (comment) 21:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• His email is blocked, his talkpage is locked, unless Arbcom has radically changed, anything he sends to arbcom-l is ignored, and Malleus (who traditionally acted as his ambassador in these situations) is gone. Not sure how he could ask. – iridescent 21:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• I assumed by email to you or somebody else. I seem to recall a previous request as well. Anyway, I guess it doesn't matter but it would be good to know whether he wants to come back or not before we start discussing how. Though, on reflection, I don't see a need for onerous conditions. --regentspark (comment) 22:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Presuming he understood the reason for his ban and subsequent extension and at least made an effort to work with others, then I'd be fine with a return. He's done plenty of great content and copyright work, and it was a call I really hated making from that perspective. Wizardman 22:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe OR is still active in other WF entities, like here, for instance, and it would probably be possible to contact him through one or more of them, and potentially have him address the issues either by sending an e-mail as per WP:ARBCOM#BASC or by request at WP:ARCA. I personally would welcome seeing the matter at least discussed, and would very much look forward to seeing him able to return for at least the subject under discussion here, and probably in a broader sense as well. John Carter (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Ottava Rima published his most recent unblock request on Wikipedia Review; I have not checked to see if he also posted the Committee's response to it there, although he might have. The request was reviewed in early January and declined. Arbcom is aware that Ottava has continued to participate on other Wikimedia projects, and examining his block logs and recent edits on those other projects was part of the review. Others might also find this informative. Risker (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

As I recall the previous committee wouldn't have him back if he was the last person alive editing Wikipedia, unless they were all dead first. And even then they wouldn't. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I certainly won't say you're wrong here, Elen; however, I think it's fair to allow others to draw their own conclusions, looking at the same information that Arbcom had at the time, since it is all publicly available. If Ottava had not published his unblock request publicly, it would be more difficult for others to examine the information. Risker (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the information might usefully be made more accessible in this thread. This is the relevant 2009 RFAR, and note also the 2010 arbcom statement on OR's ban appeal with the consequent change of OR's block from one year to indefinite. Iridescent, I'm far from sure everybody knows your 2011 arguments in favor of unblocking; for instance, I don't. You might provide a link, unless you're referring to sekrit arbcom discussions (and using "you all" in a rather restricted sense). I'd be interested to read those arguments, especially to see if you summarised the problem then, too, as 'he's irritating and self-righteous, just like most other editors'. I think the evidence in the RFAR suggested something going a little beyond the common frailties of humanity. Bishonen | talk 00:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC).

• • I would also append to Risker's statement that I gave Ottava full permission to post my response to his appeal; whether or not he actually did is not something I can answer. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of the response from the previous committee, to clarify. It's possible it was phrased a shade more tactfully - I wouldn't have said the above was verbatim :) Am I right in thinking that a community unblock discussion at this point would carry no weight? Is it worth continuing the discussion if so. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)