User:Ottava Rima/Archive

Retired by ArbCom.

Farewell

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

Ottava - I hope you at least stay connected with the project. It may be cliched, but these lines from the Bard seem to depict your wiki time perfectly.

I understand you've struggled around here and I hope you are kept from the mad side of wiki. But... it seems more like a vindication at this point, like something extraordinary. I for one hope Ottava is given one last chance, if it's not too late. Only the best, ceranthor 02:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Retired?

Ottava, I just received your good-bye email. Now I see you consider yourself "retired." Retired? I am surprised, but not because I am not aware that you have been involved in various disputes and conflicts, including this latest Arbitration Committee case. If I understand it correctly, it has been proposed that you be banned for a certain time. Proposals surely don't denote foregone conclusions. But suppose that you are banned even for a full year. That year will be over before you know it. Meanwhile, I cannot speak for others with whom you have collaborated in content creation, but, for my part, I will continue working on Characters of Shakespear's Plays. If it is not finished by the time your ban (again, supposing there really will be a ban) has expired, I would be happy to have you back to join me in nominating it for FA status. And that may yet be the way it happens, since as you see I work slowly. I think that your "retirement" is premature. But that is your decision, and however things go, you will always get credit, not least from me (but of course it's also in the history), for having kick-started the article (who knows if or when I ever would have gotten to it?) and laid down a solid foundation, as well as getting it to GA status. Regards, Alan W (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather shocked by the various banning proposals being floated in the ArbCom case, but I'm even more disappointed in Ottava's misplaced faith in the integrity of every ArbCom member when he made his rash promise to leave if even one of them felt that he wasn't welcome here. Hell, half of them aren't welcome here so far as I'm concerned, and I've got no doubt that the feeling is mutual. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the Arbcom case results in a temporary block, Ottava, I do hope that you return to editing at some point. It is quite obvious that you have a great deal to offer Wikipedia. I encourage you to take a nice break (I'm sure you, like the rest of us, are crazy busy with holiday preparations) and regain some perspective. When you are ready, look for useful nuggets of advice you can take away from this ordeal to make your editing here more enjoyable for all concerned. If you choose not to return, take pride in the fact that your efforts have made one small corner of Wikipedia better - millions of high school and college students will be very grateful to you! Best wishes. Karanacs (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, wasn't pleased to log on for the first time in days and see this... good luck with all that you try to do in real life, and—like Karanacs said—be proud of the articles you have made. Many are some of Wikipedia's finest work. Hope to see you scampering around wiki again sometime after the ban. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, my husband's business partner retired once. After spending a couple years playing golf he became incessantly bored and went into business again. Even with the strife of work, the satisfaction of his accomplishments was worth the trouble. I hope that you see your time on Wikipedia in the same light. You have been a pleasure to work with, you have produced many worthy and interesting articles. I was hoping for your help on the Theology of the Body page when I get around to that in the next month or two. Maybe by then you will be tired of playing golf : ) NancyHeise ^talk 15:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Observations on Wikipedia behavior

One of my favorite essays on Wikipedia is Antandrus' "Observations on Wikipedia behavior." While you have some free time, I think you should read it; I imagine you would enjoy it. Number 62 in particular struck me as I re-skimmed it this evening. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A typical example of wiki-speak, recommended by an experienced practitioner.

The arbcom case of Ottava Rima is a typical WP malfunction. In my view, those Wikipedia rules such as WP:NPOV, WP:Verify, WP:NOR, which attempt to guide volunteer editors toward writing a good articles for a good on-line encyclopedia, have real value. On the other hand, the set of rules that involves WP's failed experiment in social engineering are highly problematic; and rules such as WP:NPA, WP:3RR, WP:BATTLE, etc, have become the means used by editors who are often lacking intellectually, but are expert at using whining, squealing, and wiki-lawering to achieve editing goals by having their editorial opponents blocked. Or,all too frequently, the motivation for manipulating those rules is nothing better than the small-minded meanness and vindictiveness of incompetent editors toward more expert editors. I am not saying those rules have no good function, but rather that they are too frequently use to justify (and hide) problematic motivations.

Put simply, WP needs to find ways to accommodate a certain amount of temperament in good editors. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. People are free to write wherever else they'd like to and even license their work under a free license, but the collaborative nature of this project is non-negotiable. Those who are unable to collaborate effectively should leave (or be shown the door). Neither Ottava nor the community are blameless here, to be sure. But thousands upon thousands of people have found it possible to contribute here productively without the drama that surround a very small few. So I'm willing to put my money on the theory that, at least in this particular type of relationship between an editor and the community (which is not unique type of relationship, but is fairly rare), it's not the community at fault. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but this excuse is wiki-nonsense. The collaborative nature of human existence has been the currency of rational thought since ancient times, as can easily be seen in all philosophical discussion of the polis. The idea that WP is somehow more collaborative than other human projects is unconvincing and, I think, irrational. This policy eliminates exactly the users most needed by WP to maintain creative internal discourse (which always involves some interpersonal friction), and external quality of WP articles. Who is it now that celebrates the murder of Socrates, or the exile of the philosophers from Rome by Vespasian? If Renaissance Florence had the same approach as WP, that city would not now have the David which was created by a man as irascible as he was brilliant. The practice of sending many of its best editors into wiki-exile, justified by its (obviously failed) experiment in social engineering, guarantees the mediocrity for which WP is so famous. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

And yet; When in Rome.... — Ched :  ?  14:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Does that include, in your opinion, throwing Christians to lions in the Colosseum, or having apes rape Christian women for the entertainment of the crowd? 173.52.187.133 (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I decided to add a few words on consensus, since Ched brought the subject up, and I think he may be confusing majority vote, and/or agreement with consensus.

Consensus is found in a particular approach to making the agreements. If there are two sides (as in two teams) opposing eachother, the opposing sides may reach agreements, but never consensus. In a consensus situation everyone is playing on the same team, and working for the same goal. Members of the same team may have disagreements, but their shared goal makes reaching a consensus possible, because the only disagreements are over how to reach their shared goal. Opposing teams never have shared goals, and never have consensus. I think that any user with a normal level of intelligence will be able to apply this to the problems under discussion. You will understand that iff the situation I have described is correct (ie that many editors think writing quality articles is what WP is about; but administrators -- and particularly arbcom -- think on the contrary that WP is a social experiment that also happens to be writing an encyclopedia) then consensus is not even properly an issue here. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous user, it seems clear to me that you are a real-life friend or acquaintance of Ottava Rima. I think you should be a bit more open to the possibility that he doesn't show his best side on this wiki. I don't know what he is like in real life, but on this wiki he is trying to assume an air of authority that is simply not in an appropriate relation to the quality of his contributions or his reasoning.

Ottava's unacceptible behaviour is so compulsive that it is almost trivial to make him bully someone to accept the most outrageous claims. Dbachmann has demonstrated this on his own talk page. Read how Ottava defended "because of he is your friend" (my italics) as perfectly grammatical, or at least a hypercorrection here and here.

Please do look at this example. And then, if you think he was actually right or his behaviour perfectly acceptable, please say so very clearly. Hans Adler 14:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not know Ottava Rima and have never edited the articles he edits. We have different interests. My point concerns problems with WP in general, not his problems in particular. Although I do see him as a victim of the general problems, he is certainly not the only one.

The problem I see, to word it differently, is that WP attracts many good editors based on this [1], and editors learn only after they are well started on WP projects they care about that -- contrary to what is stated -- WP the social engineering experiment take precedence over the writing of good WP articles. If it were made clear to to potential editors, before they start to edit articles, that WP is primarily an experiment in social engineering there would be less problems. Ottava Rima's main mistake is that he seems either not to have understood the order of things on WP, or understood only after he was committed to the writing of certain articles.

In my view, WP would be better at what is supposed to be, an online encyclopedia, if it altered the social experiment aspect, and was more tolerant of temperamental editors who are writing good articles. I do not expect that will actually happen, but think WP would be a better encyclopedia if it did. (Just to give one more example: those patrons who supported the work of Beethoven, could easily have found other composers to work with who had less difficult personalities. Thank God they were willing to tolerate the difficulties for the sake of the quality.)

I will say no more because my point should clear by now. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Anon, perhaps it is the confluence of so many cold medications that give me cause to post this addressing your comments about Wikipedia in general in this venue. This page is watched by people with an interest in Ottava Rima's participation on Wikipedia. Now that he has resigned, I cannot imagine that a general discussion about your points will or should take place here. While I cannot suggest a location where your concerns will be addressed or discussed with the best intentions, this page is among the last where that would happen. Mine won't do either. If you actually want someone to respond thoughtfully, I'm actually at a loss where this might take place. --Moni3 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that that is a reasonable concern. I have no idea how important it is: How much could we profit in terms of additional contributions if we found a way to accommodate those experts for whom neither Wikipedia nor Citizendium is an appropriate environment? But it's certainly worth considering. If anyone is interested in pursuing this further and perhaps trying to develop a concrete plan, I suggest WP:Content noticeboard for a continuation of this discussion. Normally this would be something for the village pump, but I believe it has the wrong demographics for such questions. Hans Adler 20:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Farewell

Appreciation for what you accomplished, and with awareness of all that remains still undone...Modernist (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers

1. Thanks for all the good work, and I hope to work with you again sometime soon. NW (Talk) 04:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Thank you for all your contributions to the project. It's definitely been fun. Hope you come back soon, –blurpeace ^(talk) 04:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
3. A shame, really. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Likewise. Here's hoping that a year from now what people remember is all those FAs and GAs and DYKs. Durova³⁸⁰ 04:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Regrettable. DS (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
6. No false tears here. I think it's Wikipedia's loss, but you've done the right thing in joining the rest of us rats leaving this sinking ship. Wikipedia is finally entering the much-predicted Maintenance Phase where the fight against weeds overtakes the planting of new crops, and when the Arbcom results are announced tomorrow I fully expect them to confirm the irreversable trend of Wikipedia from being an information source to being a social networking site for nerds. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, and it fills a niche, but it's not what I joined, not, I suspect what you joined, and not what the funders thought they were funding. – iridescent 17:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
7. → –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Ottava, I am proud to have worked with you (however slightly), and I truly hope that this will quickly be behind us all. I hope to see you return ASAP, and I hope that the future holds an enjoyable return to WP with continued great contributions. All my best, and I hope to see you back soon. — Ched :  ?  18:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Fuck. :(  GARDEN  19:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
10. I think we should riot on the streets :P - Hopefully the decision could just be reversed :| Boo politics. Bye man.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 19:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
11. Damn shame things worked out this way. See you in the funny pages. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
12. While we may have had our minor disputes in the past, I'm still thankful for the massive amounts of content work you've done for this project. Your contributions are truly special, and I do not think that my content work will ever compare to yours. See you, man. (X! · talk)  · @216  ·  04:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
13. Thanks for the hard work.--Tznkai (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
14. Sorry to see this, all the best for the future, dave souza, talk 19:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
15. Very sad. Majorly talk 22:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
16. Echoing Durova, but going farther to say that, by a year or so, I hope that you aren't something that has to be "remembered" because you return, under some name to at least semi-active editing. If you don't return, though, I have no doubt that you will be remembered either for your contributions, which certainly are more significant than those of a lot of us, myself perhaps particularly. John Carter (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
17. Congrats on Grecian Urn making FA:) Mrathel (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
18. Congrats on your contribs... you'll be missed!  IShadowed  ✰  04:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
19. Not much I can say that hasn't been said. So long, and thanks for all the fish articles... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
20. I know you thought you'd done what most mattered to you, and had other objectives. Your talents and commitment will be missed - and if you do drop in, that will be our gain. --Philcha (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
21. Ottava...in spite of our different views on WP:NPA, your article work was something I held in high esteem. I know you'll be back to share your knowledge with others - you know you wanna (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
22. J.d already stole the Douglas Adam's quote, so I'll use one from the Creed: "Nothing is true - everything is permitted". –xeno^talk 15:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
23. Echoing Garden. Aditya Ex Machina 16:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
24. So long and thanks for all the fish! Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
25. Goodbye, Ottava. I don't know why, but your leaving reminds me of the above piano concerto. Good luck with your life ahead, and I hope everything else goes well for you! —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 21:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
26. I'll be looking forward to your ghost haunting the WikiCup. Cheers, my friend. iMatthew ^talk at 03:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
27. Take care dude.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 05:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
28. Oh no! This is a tragedy. :( Thanks for all that written work. --candle•wicke 05:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
29. NVO (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
30. In fact they have harmed themselves, and WP, but not you. (Anytus and Meletus can kill me, but they can not harm me. Socrates, as quoted by Epictetus, The Enchiridion 53). Salve. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
31. Triplestop x3 00:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
32. Just got back from my long wiki-break and noticed you may be going on a sabbatical. Good luck on your endeavors.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
33. Bye Ottava Rime. Christie the puppy lover (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
34. GL OR. Personally, I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with ArbCOM's actions, I do know, however, that your input was invaluable and your contributions to the project will be missed. I hope you decide to return when the Ban is over, but if you choose not to, may all of your future endeavors be bright.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
35. Wow. I can't believe this has happened, all during a three week period of my absence. I'll miss your good work and humor. Good luck, and here's hoping that you can return in sooner than one year. Cheers, and Happy New Year, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
36. Pffft SIGNED - Regards Danger^Mouse (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
37. Obviously banning you was in the best interest of the encyclopedia. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 00:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
38. I was very new when you left, and I was rather troubled rereading this whole saga of late. I don't know where I stand; but I do hope you do return. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 03:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
39. I wasn't around when you were banned, but I've gotten to know you over IRC and other WMF wikis, and you're a very nice guy. I find it hard to believe that this would happen to you. Pilif12p :  Yo  22:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
40. Farewell. Sunderland06 (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

To a fallen comrade

There is a homily to be a person of nice,

which was said many times by he called Christ,

the message of deep you did not hear it,

spoken loud and clear from the Holy Spirit,

It is not from Shakespeare or even his Hamlet,

but sometimes is called the Great Commandment.

So next time you start to put on your shoe,

think what you would have others to do,

The Torah said it’s not from a fool,

is oftentimes called the Golden Rule.

The Holy Spirit you did not hear,

not even others that spoke so dear,

You gave no credit,

not even a pence,

which I would say,

lacks common sense

You danced around a pointed fence,

that only angered a trusted prince,

he gave you clear and bright advice,

before you got the big surprise.

Now we plug along our way,

to make our normal harvest hay,

no bugs or pests to bother our crop,

from here and there we now can hop,

when later we see you oh my dear,

which many I'm sure would like a year.

The Holy Spirit is there for you,

if only you had eyes to view,

But even then you would not know,

for to you its fog and snow.

Now again I’ll reveal the secret,

pray this time you have de grit,

to pick up on those many hints,

it is nothing but common sense.

Here is a little more for you to bear,

that I am sure you wish not to hear.

This is Wiki and not your wala,

my friend and companion is Ursula.

Since it looks like you are still in limbo,

I suggest you contact Jimbo.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Parting words

I decided I wanted to leave behind some parting words.

Someone once came to me in tears, asking how they can go on in life when there is so much telling them that death is inevitable. It was just not a stray thought of death, but it was the idea that the world would come to an end and that everything would abruptly stop. I thought it out and responded to her. From those thoughts I will leave you with this.

There is always hope for something better.

We are all mortal, born of Eve and inheritors of her curse. Be it what we think we deserve this fate or not, it is something that we all must deal with. Our lives are filled with the knowledge that we shall pass, and all shall pass along with us. This causes us pain, and we struggle against ourselves. We become petty and cruel, lashing out at each other. But life itself is something we should cherish.

We are cut short by our own failings, our own sin, and our own faults. When we worry or embrace these sins we enter a living death. We are unable to see the world around us and to realize what we had. Instead, the only way to fight death is to truly live. This does not mean to go out, have "adventures", or live like an animal. Quite the opposite, we must use our time and embrace our reason to understand the beauty in the world. We must open ourselves and our mind to understand what is around us.

To take in nature, to take in life, to take in the glory that permeates all existence, that is how to live. Although we are sinners, we can examine each other and, in sympathy, be able to see the beauty that is hidden beneath that which distracts us. We should not think of what we don't have, but what we were lucky enough to ever have.

I, personally, have the hope in a divine savior. Although I know I am unworthy, I cling to hope that I shall be forgiven. But what if I am not? I am left with one thought - I was allowed to exist. Even if I should pay for my crimes, my sins, and my faults, I was given the chance to experience this world, this place, and to find happiness here. In my works, in my actions, I was able to do something that I felt was great. I was able to see a structure that was wonderful, and I participated in it. Everything must come to an end, but I cherish the time that I was granted, for the good and the bad were always more than I probably ever deserved.

I have hope that in the darkness there will be a light, and that light will conquer all. However, I find consolation in the idea that there is a light, even if I shall not be one to see it.

- Ottava Rima (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If that's not worth a second chance, I don't know what is. ceranthor 22:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Banning

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions Discuss this

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

• User:Ottava Rima is banned from Wikipedia for a period of 1 year.
• User:Moreschi is admonished for posting editor-specific information that directly leads to the private identity of pseudonymous editors.
• The community is strongly encouraged to review and document standing good practice for the imposition of discretionary sanctions, paroles, and related remedies. The community is encouraged to review and document common good practice for administrators imposing editing restrictions as a condition of an unblock and in lieu of blocks.

For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 02:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up to get rid of the messy links in the heading. Cheers, Seddon. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

Is Ottava still allowed to edit this talk page, just as with a regular block? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically not. Banned means banned. Majorly talk 15:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but "banned" is a social construct, not a technical one isn't it? There's no ban button is there? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It is social, so he must not edit this page. Whether he can or not is another question. Majorly talk 15:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's just like a normal block. Abd (talk · contribs) could and did edit his talk page during his three month ban. Mathsci (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What is a ban if it's not a block then? If they're still allowed to edit, that's kind of defeating the point of the ban. Majorly talk 15:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like one of those daft RfA questions. Surely the only difference between a ban and a block is that nobody's prepared to unilaterally put their head above the parapet and unblock in the case of a ban. Mind you, unblocking seems to be discouraged in any event, under the guise of "wheel warring". --Malleus Fatuorum 15:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

He can edit this page, but it's likely that any examples of the type of interaction that resulted in his ban will get his block reset with talkpage editing disabled (there is a button for that). Nathan ^T 16:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite aware that there's a button for that, which seems iniquitous to me, as nobody is forced to read a talk page. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

He can edit his talk page, no question. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps I'm not going to be left all alone with all of Ottava's Ainsworth stuff, once all of this fuss dies down. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

And, of course, you could probably engage in e-mail as well, which under the circumstances might get a quicker response. I'm not sure how much he'll be watching this page under the circumstances. John Carter (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I doubt I'd be watching my talk page much after a year block anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd watch it for you, Malleus. Ha. ^__^ I have email, skype, IRC, AIM, Yahoo, Googlechat, and MSN floating around somewhere. I'm probably one of the more accessible Wikipedians (which is probably why collaborative efforts with me were so easy to do). By the way, I always wanted to do this: (Kirby dance) - (^o.o)^ (^o.o)> (>o.o)> <(o.o<) <(o.o^) ^(o.o^) (^o.o)^ (^o.o)> (>o.o)> <(o.o<) <(o.o^) ^(o.o^) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps in the New Year then we can start to make some serious inroads into those Ainsworth articles then. Until then, take care and have a great Christmas. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I can dump all of my notes somewhere. I'll keep you informed. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding e-mail

As you are now using this talk page to dance around the edges of outing someone, hinting at someones previous identity while banned, I have removed your ability to edit this page. You can appeal to Jimbo. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And I see that Seddon had a similar concern, resulting in full-protection of this page four minutes earlier. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Partial lifting of talkpage protection

Per request this page is now semi-protected. Abuse of this facility will mean that protection will be re-instated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind this page being set to semi-protect, but I do mind if the block settings are changed without discussion with either myself or Arbcom. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Seasons

All the best Ottava. I'll see you again at some stage I suppose. Hope all works out for you. Ceoil (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop emailing me

I should never have responded to your earlier e-mails, now you have my address and can e-mail me even though your e-mail tool has been blocked. I am not interested in you revealing private information about that user's account history. I don't want to be burdened with information that is sensitive in nature. I am not going to entertain conspiracy theories that are lacking in basis, just because you can show this person has had multiple accounts does not mean it is abusive sock puppetry. From what I have read this user had a damn good reason for changing names involving off-wiki harassment.

I would think that the last time I told you not to send me private information about other Wikipedians that you would have realized I don't want this information, instead you send more such information. Please don't send private information about any Wikipedian to other people. I really don't know what you expect to gain from this. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you didn't have this discussion privately, as you each have the other's email addresses. Or rather I do, and it reflects poorly on you Chillum. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for popping by with your 2 cents, but I suspect you are just taking advantage of an opportunity to disagree with me. Replying to OR by e-mail was the mistake that led to these unwelcome e-mails in the first place. I don't want to talk to OR through e-mail as once I sent him an e-mail he accused me of harassment, so I am responding publicly. If you wish to talk with me further Malleus please do so on my talk page. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You are one nasty piece of work Chillum, I'd really prefer to have nothing at all to do with you. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Posting the text of the email (partially redacted) with the permission of Ottava Rima. I am just confirming the content of the email, and would prefer to have nothing more with this.

“ Chillum,

Before you claim I "outed" him, you should get your facts straight and realize that ___ was not his name nor was it oversighted regardless. Instead, he is a user who has had multiple sock puppets and restarts, and has consistently gotten into trouble since 2007. [NW's note: Many links follow about renames and restarts, which I have not investigated and have purposefully left out.]

”

To be honest, I see no reason why this had to go onwiki either Chillum. Simply asking Ottava Rima to stop emailing you or setting up a filter to block his emails (most email networks can do that) would have been the best move here. Ottava, could you please stop emailing Chilum, now that he has requested it? Best regards to all, NW (Talk) 17:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Well, just the text you posted shows OR to be a liar. I have not "consistently gotten into trouble since 2007." I've only even been blocked maybe twice, and that was early on. Further explanation can be found on my userpage, but suffice to say OR is not being truthful about my past history, and has dropped so many hints that anyone with the gumption could figure out my real-life name quite easily. While I'm not posting my actual account names on-wiki, I've included a list of the past articles I've written on my userpage, if anyone is so curious that they just have to know. Also, though I've crossed swords with Chillum in the past, I can totally appreciate that he wants his replies to OR to be completely public. I wish I had done the same once Ecoleetage started stalking me online. Perhaps then he never would have escalated it to real-life stalking. So, take it easy on Chillum for replying in public. UnitAnode 17:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have just finished explaining why I will not e-mail OR, he has referred to previous e-mails by me as harassment and as such my response to his e-mail was done in public so he could not make such an accusation again. It has been my long term position(for years now) to only respond by e-mail when that response would involve private information and that I otherwise always respond on wiki in the interest of transparency. This has never been considered a problem before. You can check my contribution history to confirm this has been my default course of action regarding e-mail for years now and is not something new. I don't think I have ever been admonished for asking a user not to e-mail me anymore on-wiki before, I don't think it was an unreasonable act on my part. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You could have said that privately, in an email, but instead you chose to start a UN debate. Grow up. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming a non-constructive conversation exceeding our WP:CIVIL bounds. Please take it offline, or drop it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, here comes the police, late as usual. The conversation ended some time ago; please try to keep up. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Even with some delay (I just realized what happened), I felt the need to tell you goodbye. I'll personally remember you as one of the best editors this project ever had. Nevertheless, it seems that it is the destiny of the project and its "police-enforcement" organs to throw away its most valuable human resources. Leniency seems to be awarded only to those who do not deserve it. I hope you enjoy your real life and that you have fun! Best!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Emails

Ottava, given our past interactions, I do not wish to exchange e-mails with you. I have not read your letters and will not. As I don't wish you to waste your time, I wanted to let you know that I have filtered them to be deleted on receipt. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 04:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ottava Rima's ability to send email through en.wikipedia has been revoked, so I don't expect that you will receive any more of them. The Wordsmith^Communicate 14:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Presumably Ottava has her email address from prior correspondence. –xeno^talk 14:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I had assumed it was coming through the system, but I guess not. I've deleted his recent messages, so can't check now. I have no record of earlier correspondence, but I suppose it's possible that I have forgotten something old. Alternatively, somebody may have given him my e-mail address. In either case, if he's not using the system, I apologize for using this forum to notify him. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What a silly thing

Palm tree justice

Surely there was a better way than this. I've not really had any personal dealings with Ottava, but I'm sure that a one year ban was excessive. Often Wikipedia users are bastards to each other. And I'm sure it can be very frustrating for one person who knows what they are doing to have a bunch of criticism from those who know little. Of course people overreact - but react to stupidity they encounter. Often people on this encyclopedia have an intensely frustrating way of conducting themselves which wouldn't get them anywhere in real life. Having glanced through some of the arbitration accounts, it seems to me that Ottava made a lot of heated comments - who cares enough to ban him for one year? Ottava will have already realised that if anything, getting angry is not productive, for his own sake as much as anybody else's. But a one year ban for a user that has contributed so much hurts the encyclopedia, and I think it's a silly thing. Wikidea 01:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree... I just passed by this page after reading one of Ottava Rima's FAs. Whoever had the idea of banning such an excellent contributor is a complete idiot. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

He is a damn annoying sod but one who does not harm wikipeida. Polargeo (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

He was banned because he harmed wikipedia by discouraging other editors from contributing by edit warring, wiki lawyering and abuse. That he is also a knowledgeable and careful scholar does not excuse this behaviour.Martinlc (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And you've stepped up to write how many featured articles since he left? --Moni3 (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite. There's far to much of this feyness on wikipedia. Real academics are notoriously rude to and about one another. Who cares? Do you trog along to your local police station every time someone upsets you? I guess some people must do though, the ones who infest WQA, for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Petition for the unban of Ottava Rima

I think it's about time we unban Ottava with some edit restrictions. He has already served more than half of his allotted block. Sincerely, Blurpeace 22:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• As proposer. Blurpeace 22:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support, with the possibility of a cadre of admins to make cool down blocks. OR knows I respect and love him, but he also knows I think he's a nutjob sometimes. --Moni3 (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Ottava really brought the ban on himself, but yeah, time to let bygones be bygones. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support even though i wasn't around when the banning happened, seems reasonable enough. Pilif12p :  Yo  23:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support I have talked to Ottava since the ban and read over what led up to it and I feel that he has matured from that last incident. Besides, he is having proxy edits done in his name so I think removing this hassle would be a benefit to this project. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Too good a content editor to have banned. Sunderland06 (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Has he asked for an unban? I think he has to ask for it via Arbcom, as he was banned through an arbitration process. Just saying. Also, he's still losing his rag on Commons and getting blocked - though I have considerable sympathy with the latest subject he took issue with - which might not help. But yes, I'd like to see if he's had a think and is prepared to accept some restrictions and give it a go.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Also per Kevin Rutherford, unkinder persons could view that as socking with a meatpuppet (or meeting with a sockpuppet?), although I wouldn't personally place supplying information for articles into that category. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who made that proxy edit, if you're talking about Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard. I don't see anything wrong with it; it was legitimately hosted at a sister project (on which he wasn't blocked) without anyone raising issue there, and was a clear improvement on what was on our page before. I don't see how importing it was any different to translating an article from French Wikipedia which was written by an editor who's blocked on en-wiki but still active on fr-wiki. – iridescent 23:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't either - just wanted to make that clear. But I bet someone suggests it for real. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support but only with the restrictions Moni suggests (although I don't know if Ottava would agree to them); basically, a group of people who will block him for his own good if he starts flying off the handle, and are willing to take the flak until he calms down. He does more good than harm, but someone needs to be prepared to put in damage limitation if he flares up before it starts causing collateral damage. If he's changed and no longer flares up, then the issue will never arise. – iridescent 23:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support I know I've been away for a while, but I'm gonna throw my 2-cents in here anyway. I didn't always agree with OR, but I appreciated the fact that he stood up for the things he thought were right. Granted, there comes a time when you just have to accept the way things are, but his work was out of the love for WP, and I admired that. I'm not sure what steps he'll need to take to get this ball rolling and actually get back to an acceptable editing status - but I'd be happy to see it happen. Cheers and best to all - been saying it for 3 months now - but hope to be back soon. :) — Ched :  ?  23:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I'd think that we'll keep an eye on him; it sure would be nice to have him back around. ceranthor 23:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support with appropriate leash as discussed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Iridescent and Moni. Perhaps OR should have a chat with NYB. Mathsci (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support with proviso's in place...Modernist (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• This seems a good start per Luke - According to Ottava....Modernist (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC), does not sit well...Modernist (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. With summer term coming to an end, there's going to be a need for amped-up drama in the coming weeks until fall semester starts. If he's unblocked now, that would be the perfect time frame for entertainment, with his reblock not coming until sometime after school is back in session. <3 Lara 23:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per everyone else. It would be nice to be able to work with him. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 23:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support, though Im curious to see what the edit restrictions will be. —Soap— 23:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

*support - seems reasonable, over six months already. Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per above. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 23:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Prodego ^talk 23:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Yo apoyo!. Diego Grez ^{¿qui pa'?} 23:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support! Please Leave Ottava Rima ALONE!!! --Zalgo (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: Though I really imagine it's not the community's call at this point, for better or worse. I'd forgotten about my follow-up comment above (dated 04:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)), but it's as true today as it was then. Ottava simply can't (or hasn't demonstrated a way to, at least) effectively contribute to the English Wikipedia. Thousands of people have found ways to edit here without incident; several thousands more have not. I don't see this as a strike against Ottava necessarily, but I do see it as the reality. I don't think the passage of time has changed his behavior or attitudes, having read some of his writings elsewhere in the intervening period. An unblock wouldn't serve the English Wikipedia or Ottava. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ottava simply can't ... effectively contribute to the English Wikipedia. I find this statement most perplexing and perceive it as being demonstrably false. Perhaps you meant to say something else? Like Ottava hasn't exhibited a consistent attitude conducive to collaboration? Simply writing an article to FA standards exhibits the ability to contribute effectively to English Wikipedia. What's your definition of contributing effectively? --Moni3 (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, that sentence is really ambiguous. I meant "effectively contribute" in the sense that he hasn't been able to do so without getting himself banned. It isn't a matter of the quality of his content contributions at all. But there is a social component here. We have a lot of editors who aren't the most social people, but who are able to contribute content without making a fuss. Ottava clearly isn't one of them. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ottava can write his articles wherever he wants. From my perspective, expressly allowing intermediaries to imports his articles from off-site is a win-win for the project as we get his good works without his bad behavior. I wish this status quo was expressly endorsed by ArbCom. (Note: I'm recused on the Ottava on ArbCom, and I'm happy to once again find myself in agreement with MZMcBride.) Cool Hand Luke 15:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support with conditions. While I haven't exactly been away, I tend to shy away from disputes not directly related to pages I am heavily involved with, and I haven't been heard from on this page in nine months. But I am now breaking my silence. There were certainly strongly positive aspects to my collaboration with Ottava when he was active (anything negative I will let rest among the bygones), and I would welcome him back if and only if he (1) formally requests his unbanning according to whatever official procedures there are, and (2) the kinds of restrictions suggested above by Moni, iridescent, and others are applied. Under these conditions, I hope to be able to say, "Welcome back, Ottava! and let's get back to working together to provide the world with all kinds of interesting facts about English literature of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries." --Alan W (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Question: Did I miss a {{wikijoint}}?? Bummer, Jack Merridew 04:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Why is this on Ottava's talk page? It isn't a community ban, If he wants to appeal then he should but this isn't really helping much. :) James (T C) 04:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Conditional support - I was always of the opinion that the original ban was unduly harsh, but if there is to be a move to reinstate Ottava's editing privileges, they must come with clear conditions. One condition I would want to see is to have Ottava banned from any discussions that do not directly concern article content, as he has shown far too much interest in wikidramas and meta-discussions that do not concern him in the past. I would also like to see the bar lowered for blocks, so that admins can block him for brief periods (of, say, up to a week) when he starts filibustering or making personal attacks. Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• +S, perhaps conditionally. It would be nice to see one of these rehabilitation movement thingies actually work. However, if conditions are laid on the unban, I strongly support the idea that OR should follow the program (or whatever ya wanna call it), since Wikipedia as a community deserves to be listened to at least as much as any individual Wikipedian. Whatever the hell that means. • Ling.Nut 13:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support, but only with high expectations of a fresh approach to avoiding drama. Tony (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC) I have researched the matter further—including the oppose comments on this page—and am extremely concerned about the history of measures taken against him, here, at the Commons, and even at the WR. I suggest that a return to the en.WP should be strictly on a trial basis, with narrow and strictly defined scope of editing, and a mentor who will maintain utter independence. Tony (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• There's no shittier task on Wikipedia than that of being a mentor. I said it before and say it again: the idea of mentors who are selected because "they have tangled with this person before and will drop the hammer" is moonbats at best, and sneaky/vindictive at worst. The idea of a friend being a mentor is just a really good way to break the mentor's heart and cause burnout. The mentor would have to have no relationship to the telemachus, can't be too kindhearted, but can't be too hangin' judge either. The mentor must deal with shit. It's a thankless task and a burnout generator. • Ling.Nut 11:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• The problem with the mentoring system is that the mentors often end up as advocates, because relationships form and empathy deepens. That's why, as Tony said, it would have to be someone able to maintain complete independence, but in a situation like this that would place the mentor under a great deal of pressure from the mentoree, to the point where it would be unlikely to work. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• The problem with the mentor system is that no one on the planet knows the correct things to say or do to help someone fully realize and (more importantly) fully accept that their view of reality is fundamentally and destructively incorrect, integrate this knowledge into their worldview, and emerge a more whole person... I'm not talking about insanity; just about gaping blindspots and/or colored glasses of various types. The latter in particular, I suppose. It's a painful thing to watch folks spiral into self-destruction for absolutely zero-point-zero reason... though the person strongly believes he/she has every reason in the world. It's the unnecessariness of it all that is discouraging.• Ling.Nut 23:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I can't be arsed to read the small print of the (no-doubt interminable) Arbcom case, but presumably if he serves out his full ban he can return unrestricted. If so, why would he want to return early and put up with months of cap-in-hand-begging-your-pardon-your-worship when it appears that he has no problem contributing to the encyclopedia from afar? If he is still the same intractable hornet that the community found so unbearable previously, then why imagine that he will pay attention to any conditions imposed? If he has reformed, then why would any conditions be necessary? Lift the ban unconditionally and deal with him if he starts playing up, the same as with any other user; Arbcom has already shown it has no problem with banning him should he become even slightly irksome. (This is mind-reading of course, he may be only too keen to return under the cosh).Yomangani^talk 14:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Allowing him back with no restrictions will eventually just lead to another ban in my opinion. IMO it would be better to let him back with some restrictions and see how that works out. Gatoclass (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Either he is reformed or he is not. If he is reformed there is not a problem. If he is unreformed then your choice is have him kick against his restrictions or against the wider system. Both eventually lead to a ban. Restrictions only have the advantage of belittling him. Yomangani^talk 14:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• For the benefit of those who aren't aware, there is a precedent for "return under strictly controlled conditions". Yes, that particular case didn't work out too well, but the structures are there. – iridescent 14:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Didn't work out too well" in English is "zOMG! spectacular FAILBOAT!!1!" and I'm aware that I was involved in that case and none too happy with how it was carried out. I think it might have worked out well if several aspects of the case were different. I understand where Yomangani is coming from, however. It's a matter of economics: how much time does the community, and really, a handful of admins, want to spend watching and attempting to curtail the nutty behavior of one prolific content editor? How much does that content editor want to participate in Wikipedia? I think it's worth trying out for a bit. If it fails, it fails. --Moni3 (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, but the time the community (or those admins) spends trying to enforce the restrictions is the same or more than would be spent curtailing other unacceptable behaviour. Most of the Matisse mentorship revolved around determining restrictions, proper forms for raising issues, limits of responsibilities, requests for clarifications etc. etc. There were probably only a handful of incidents in those months and reams of arguing. It's a wikilawyer's paradise. The restrictions are already in place - they are the same restrictions that all other editors face. Yomangani^talk 15:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, I see Yomangan(i)'s point: we cannot control the behavior of others, despite our best wishes. If there is anyOne value in restrictions at all, it is a symbolic one: that the editor is willing to be bound to them is a show of good faith. Etc. Another is the hope that such restrictions lead a person to a new self-awareness etc. But... if the ban hasn't already done that, will the restrictions? I give up. Just make sure I'm not on any d*mn mentor list. Over and out. • Ling.Nut 15:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• In a sense, Ottava is already "editing with restrictions", since he's still making contributions that are just being posted by his buddies. So some restrictions really do work. I do think though that the current de facto "system" is far from ideal and that we'd be better to let him back with some clear restrictions on where he is and isn't allowed to post in order to limit his potential for disruption. If in addition, we say, added a condition that he is not permitted to appeal a ban of a week or less, he might be sufficiently defanged to be considered a net asset. Gatoclass (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Support - Graham Colm (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support, per Moni3's idea - especially given there is remote-editing going on anyway. Why not make it a bit easier. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Support - I didn't even know O was blocked... I have been on my own wiki break... Let the man come back and give it his best. Perhaps we are all pissing in the wind and he will be banned in 3 days...and perhaps not. But at least it can be said that he had that chance. - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

He isn't blocked, he's banned. There are those who believe that there's a technical difference, but I'm not one of them. Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

He is blocked [2] with an expiration of December 20th, just in time for the Winter Solstice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

He is banned (a social construction); the ban is enforced with a block (a technical implement). –xeno^talk 19:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies...allow me to rephrase... I didn't even know Ottava was blocked or banned or unable to edit for whatever reason... I have been on a wiki break... Let the man come back and give it his best. - 4twenty42o (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - A good content editor worth the effort to keep close to the project. Leo 03:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Were one to balance on a set of scales the political turmoil Ottava was supposedly a part of, and his article contributions, the latter would easily be the heavier. I know which our readers find more important. Parrot of Doom 08:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support He can be as annoying as hell but on balance I have never seen the need for this long term ban. Polargeo (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support return with restrictions, which has a better chance of success than an unrestricted return after a one-year ban. However, has anyone asked Ottava if he wants to return? It seems he hasn't requested this himself, and judging by the way he left [3][4] I had the impression that he didn't intend to come back at all. Jafeluv (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • He implies that he wants to be unbanned here. Then again, his proposal also implies that he actually asked people who are to serve as his not-mentors, but some at least one of those users hasn't edited in months. Cool Hand Luke 21:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, I think Ottava is responding to this comment here. I did not exhaustively check the list of users Ottava volunteered for a task without asking, but I happen to know that at least Vassyana has not edited for months, and I've changed the comment appropriately. You're welcome, Ottava. Cool Hand Luke 22:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: A few weeks ago I would have supported this effort fully, because I thought Ottava was an exceptional contributor who just had a hard time keeping his cool in a debate. I don't consider myself part of the "Wikipedia Community" any more, so I'm not opposing, but those of you who have concerns about sheltering younger editors from certain sorts of influences should have a peek at this. There's something wrong there. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Broken link. --Moni3 (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You have to be logged in (it's in the "Tar Pit"). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, then. I guess I won't be reading it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well! Good to know at least one Wikipedian isn't willing to go the extra mile (or inch, or centimeter) to actually research something. I hope you know I'm not trying to pick on you, Moni, just pointing out a flaw in the cultural taboos you've adopted to fit in here on WP. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are picking on me, it's not a very good strategy since you don't seem to know just how far I'll go for content citations and image permissions, and how I often call editors who would rather argue on talk pages than go to a library cheap and lazy. This isn't a matter of content, and if you want to make your point here then post the comment. You're forcing me to become a member of Wikipedia Review, and I would rather not be one, not even to read the comment you're referencing. I have what I consider very good reasons. --Moni3 (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The thread SB_Johnny references is one where Ottava chided parents for letting their young children out naked because—he argued—genitalia are inherently sexual. This struck many people as an odd and vaguely creepy argument, although I think SB_Johnny might have misunderstood it to mean that Ottava finds childrens' nudity arousing—something that I don't think Ottava meant to suggest (and which I believe is untrue). Ottava being Ottava, he refused to back down on the point no matter how poorly he had expressed it, so he is now claiming that SB_Johnny is himself a pedophile who he has reported to the FBI.[5] (Link not broken, for now.) For clarity, there's no evidence for Ottava's extraordinary claim at all—it seems Ottava jumped to the conclusion that SB_Johnny thinks childhood nudity is no big deal ergo SB_Johnny must be a self-serving pedophile. Quite a breath-taking logical leap, if you ask me. Cool Hand Luke 21:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

For full disclosure, I'm not fond of Ottava because of an interaction similar to SB_Johnny's. Ottava claimed that attribution was a requirement for the copyright doctrine of fair use. I disagreed with him because it's not—neither by statute nor case law. He quickly concluded that I disagreed with him because I was a self-servin' copyright violatin' plagiarist.

Bottom line is that I agree there's at least one very good reason not to sign up for Wikipedia Review, Moni3—Ottava posts there and will viciously attack anyone who disagrees with his oft-disagreeable pronouncements.. Cool Hand Luke 22:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review is a hallowed place. I think the point is, if Ottava's ban is lifted and he returns with the same attitude to those who disagree with him (i.e "they're evil"), well, he'll probably be under supervision and he'll just get banned again. But we won't find out if he's able to edit here without getting into such disputes until he comes back. He might wise up, he might not, but I for one think it's worth the chance. I've been a victim of the disagreeing-with-Ottava situation, it's not very pretty, but I don't think his comments on WR should be taken too seriously - perhaps he can keep his debating on there. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 02:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Saying nothing one way or another about the proposal itself, I really doubt this is the best place to make it. Only editors who have this page watched would know it is here. The proper place for this discussion, I think, would probably be one of the admin noticeboards, or maybe as a request to ArbCom, depending on the particulars of the ban which I have forgotten. John Carter (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Since this was an Arbcom ban, I would think (in agreement with John Carter and several others who have commented here) that Arbcom needs to be involved with any request to unban. --Orlady (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

He has made such a request of the Committee, and it is being reviewed. SirFozzie (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom statement on your ban appeal

Your actions in other areas under the WMF umbrella, your communications with this Committee, the content of your ban appeal, and your apparent inability or unwillingness to recognize and correct the behavior that led to your ban, all indicate that you have not yet come to understand the collaborative nature of this project. Your request to be unbanned is denied. As you have exercised your option to appeal the ban, your block will now be converted to an indefinite block, reflecting the original remedy restricting you from returning to editing until conditions for your return are determined and approved in advance. You may next appeal your ban after 15 January 2011.

It is noted that you have, like tens of thousands of other editors, produced content on other Wikimedia projects with licenses compatible with those of this project. Any editor may of course routinely import any such material to the English Wikipedia providing they either (i) attribute in the edit summary the originating source and include the exact difference of the material imported or (ii) post comparable information on the article's talk page. Editors remain responsible for their own edits, including imported content from other sources. SirFozzie (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee's full statement is here, and a copy of this will be emailed to you, Ottava. SirFozzie (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)