Revision as of 17:55, 16 November 2009

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Parties involved

1) I request that the parties listed here be amend to reflect that Moreschi has multiple entries below as an involved party. SB Johnny also has one such entry, but I have not seen any evidence that reflects his involvement in this matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Propose amending expansion (update) - per and , I ask that Jehochman's name be removed as an involved party in this case and I ask that Moreschi's name be added to the case. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Hm. I sort of assumed I was an involved party, although if we regard that list as those involved in imposing the original civility restriction, there's no way I am - and that is why we're here, in theory. If the arbitrators want to formally acknoweldge the expansion of the scope of this case, then it hardly makes a difference to me either way. Moreschi (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Questions to Ottava Rima from Hipocrite

You have stated that you were "contacted to aid in edit and POV war against User:Haiduc." Who contacted you, and could you please provide evidence of this to ArbCom?

You have stated that you "trolled commons to support Nandesuka." Apparently this involved you going over the top to support Nandesuka with outrageously false GFDL claims. Who contacted you to do this, and could you please provide evidence of this to ArbCom?

Could you additionally provide a list of all other agreements, either existant or canceled that you have to harass or annoy other users in exchange for wikifavors, and provide evidence of this to ArbCom? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I would rather not say who told me to do what or any private communications. I will accept full responsibility for the above actions. The above was the only set of times I have ever done that out of "wikifavor". If any Arbitrator wishes to privately contact me and discuss things with secrecy, then I will be willing to discuss the matter further. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Question to Ottava Rima from Newyorkbrad

What steps, if any, do you believe can be taken to retain the benefits of your content contributions to Misplaced Pages, while reducing the sharply negative interactions between you and other editors? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to answer the question directly and privately if that is possible. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean privately just for me, or also for review by the other arbitrators? Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not mind if others see or view it. I am only concerned about various things leaking and being used against me as happened in a previous case where I was assured privacy and that did not happen. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You can forward to the ArbCom mailing list anything you would like us to consider. You might want to include a short explanation of why you feel the need to keep the information in your message confidential (unless it is self-explanatory), because normally we prefer evidence on-wiki so other editors have an opportunity to respond to it, unless there are privacy or other issues involved. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've sent you an email statement not as an answer to the question but as an explanation of my concerns about answering the statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have decided that I will decline from making any answer to the above as I am not qualified to make such judgments nor would I even have the objectivity necessary to do so. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Normally we prefer evidence on-wiki so other editors have an opportunity to respond to it." I agree. There should be no "poisoning the well" behind the scenes via the back channels, as appears to have been the case. Any evidence should be open to scrutiny. --Folantin (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Moreschi

Proposed principles

Professionalism

1) Misplaced Pages editors participate in the project expecting to be treated with courtesy. High standards of decorum appropriate to an intellectual project must be maintained. Attacks, smears, and threats directed against Wikipedians are not tolerated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is a true principle although some tweaking of the wording will be appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed: nicked from Kirill's essay. Moreschi (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Civility is sometimes too strictly enforced, but Ottava's antics are way over the line. --Folantin (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And sometimes civility isn't enforced at all - in various discussions (not necessarily about the parties here) various admins have stated publically that they would not take action if an editor's only 'crime' is incivility. Other editors maintain a definition of civility that does not go as far as courtesy (along the lines of a minimum standard to keep one out of trouble with one's schoolmasters, say). I think this variation does not help the project, and I think the wording proposed does not reflect reality. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(In response to Elen) Speaking only for myself, I believe in civility as a guiding principle, but I don't believe that admins should be in the business of "enforcing" civility with blocks and bans. I just wanted to clarify - the fact that I won't issue "civility blocks" doesn't mean I disdain the idea of civility, only that I prefer more thoughtful and less blunt means of "enforcing" it. MastCell  18:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

One recurring problem, which has caused a number of melt-downs at AN/I over the past several weeks, is that admins and non-admin editors have taken the occasion WP:CIVIL reports and enforcement requests to advocate against the enforceability of the policy or worse, unblocked blocked editors and turned the accusatory light on those requesting enforcement. Perhaps that is one of the things that emboldened OR to be so defiant of the policy and allowed his abuse of other editors to go mostly unchecked. There's a growing sentiment at AN/I that discussion there should focus on existing policy and that dispute resolution forums are not the place for arguing against policies. Without the final backstop of enforceability, a policy is not a policy, it's just an essay. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite. Some days an editor can be blocked for something direct but quite mild, other times nothing short of outrageous racist abuse merits a reaction. ETA - and even then, only the fourth admin agrees . In light of this (a) its not surprising that someone with poor social skills or a short fuse gets confused and (b) the proposed statement is mere prosying. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility is important, and I think that much of the facts here show a lack of civility from several parties involved. The problem is discerning where the line between nice and civil is. OR is not nice in respect to academic arguments. I don't mean that in a bad way; I have collaborated with him on more projects than most and have found him helpful and kind. I will not deny that some of the evidence given is legitimate in showing incivility on OR's part, but there are statements on the evidence page that are clearly evidence of incivility on the part of the presenters. From what I understand, this case is about whether or not there is a group of editors who coordinate efforts to counter the arguments made by OR. If so, it may not excuse all of his behavior but should at least be a mitigating factor in how to remedy the disruption that had led to this Arbcom. Mrathel (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't see what substance there is behind your comment. On Talk:Persian Empire Ottava showed himself to be shockingly ignorant of the basic facts of Iranian history and he launched gratuitous personal attacks on editors with far more expertise than he possesses. There's also a strong suspicion he summoned his friends to the article. --Folantin (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

To Mrathel: no, this case has a broad scope of investigating everything Ottava-related. As for Ottava's claims of a grand conspiracy, see Newyorkbrad's comments here. Moreschi (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I do stand corrected on that matter, I wrongly assumed Arbcom had taken up the matter presented to them. I do have to say that being "shockingly ignorant" of Iranian history has nothing to do with civility. Stating that an editor "clearly has a lot of free time on his hands", on the other hand, is at best "not nice". Do whatever you like, gentlemen and women, just keep the gloves above the waist. Mrathel (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying he has a lot of free time on his hands is simply stating the obvious. If he had time to post 252 comments to the talk page of an article on a subject he knew nothing about then that's a valid comment. What I have said about Ottava is pretty mild compared to the abuse he has directed towards me and others. I've never threatened to phone up anyone's university, for one thing. (Who's the "gentleman and woman" BTW?) --Folantin (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to argue, but being "mild compared to" shows that you recognize that you have lowered the standard. Just be civil and let the committee decide. Mrathel (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You should tell your friend Ottava not to go round accusing others of "destroying Misplaced Pages". (And you still haven't answered my question). --Folantin (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Gentleman and woman? Folantin, which one of us is the woman? I mean, Moreschi may be a sexually ambiguous username, but it's pretty evident I'm male, and a whole little section of your evidence is devoted to showing how Ottava keeps getting your gender wrong. Or is it just assumed we're a married couple by now? Arrgghh!

Joking apart - please. Saying Ottava has lots of free time is obvious. If he didn't he'd hardly have time to write all his FAs, let alone his discourses on Metallica. And yes, well, it's pretty clear he doesn't know much about Iranian history. He just wound up repeating the nonsensical assertions of a bunch of Persian nationalists, and since he's clearly not one himself you have to assume his knowledge of Iranian history is derived from, well, the Misplaced Pages writings of those Persian patriots. Come on: the evidence page is filled with list after list of Ottava hurling vitriolic abuse at opponents in content disputes and innocent bystanders alike, and you're quibbling about this? Sense of proportion! Moreschi (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't blame the "Persian patriots" for Ottava's mistakes. They may be a tendentious lot but they have rarely reached the levels of absurdity displayed here . --Folantin (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) A few things are coming out here. We may not know exactly where to draw the line, which specific edits crossed it, and what to do about it, but by any reasonable reputation OR has at times crossed the line. He is not the only editor who has been uncivil. Others have been harsh on OR and, indeed, OR's hostility to others engenders hostility in return. Two aggressive editors may form a pack, they may enjoy sparring, or they may both upset each other. Does it matter who started it? OR has grown quick to accuse critics of incivility and personal attacks when they say he is uncivil. It is all easy to game. Fortunately OR is not terribly crafty about it, and a quick read is enough to see the silliness of any of the hundreds of times he has called for blocks against editors for criticizing him. The case is not about deciding exactly what OR did and sanctioning him for that. It's about whether the community is allowed to tell OR he is on a short leash, and to deal quickly with further transgressions. It may also concern why most previous efforts by administrators to deal with OR were reversed by other administrators or shot down by OR or his supporters. Reading through the Davmeistermoab RfA mentioned by Rschen7754, one wonders why nobody simply told OR to stop. Surely there were many administrators reading the page. Why didn't one of them tell OR he was disrupting the voting process, and that he would be blocked if he did? And why, if he were blocked, would another admin likely have unblocked him claiming lack of consensus? Instead of action, there was resignation that we were stuck with the behavior and even some resentment of those naive enough to think otherwise. If ArbCom can clear that up I think we can deal with the specific instances a lot more expeditiously in the future and it does not have to be an ArbCom case every time. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I should have gone straight to ANI when Ottava made his first edit to Talk:Persian Empire because it was a blatant violation of WP:TALK. But I knew nothing would be done about it and when he got off scot-free after threatening to harass John Kenney off-wiki that simply confirmed my belief he had a licence to break the rules without sanction. The comment by Crossmr at the end is particularly apposite: "That kind of situation is a clear indication that a hard look should be taken at the user, and the enablers. Anyone who continually excuses a user in my opinion is nearly as guilty in terms of committing the violations that they commit." --Folantin (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the core problem is not incivility as such, which, except in the most egregious cases has fuzzy boundaries. Most people will take some pretty abrasive one-off comments in stride, while other recipients will give as good as they get. What is really damaging is sustained bullying and threatening. Imagine you're in a university department. Substitute "university" for "Misplaced Pages", "department" for " topic", and "disciplinary committee" for "ANI/Arbcom". What would be your reaction to a colleague who repeatedly met intellectual or procedural disagreements (even incredibly minor ones) with variations on:

I'm going to have you banned from this university!

Do I have to have you banned from this department?

I'll see that you're taken to the disciplinary committee and banned from the university.

What would be your reaction if this person actually carried out those threats (or attempted to) enough times for others to feel that they might be next if they didn't back down? What would you think of a university that made its members work under those conditions because the person's publications for the RAE 'justified' letting that behaviour go unchecked? Voceditenore (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, in an office. "I'm going to have you fired! Do I have to take you the Board of directors? Don't agree? You're part of a conspiracy to get me fired!".

And all this as part of a discussion over the temperature of the water cooler. Voceditenore has hit the nail on the head: we wouldn't tolerate this in a professional environment - so why here? Moreschi (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, real life volunteer organizations wouldn't tolerate it either. Voceditenore (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a real life volunteer organization, actually ;-). Given that, it might be good to avoid a certain tone when discussing a troublesome and/or troubled volunteer. I agree that the issue here is mostly to do with a pugnacious and "pseudo-litigious" approach on Ottava's part (I've received a few bites myself), but I'm not sure the best way to address that is to make comments in kind... and a few of the comments above are certainly pushing the envelope a bit. --SB_Johnny |  19:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not 'real' in the sense that people are working here (pseudo) anonymously. The real person, with their real identity, does not have to take personal responsibility for what they say and do. (If they did, I suspect the incidence of this kind of behaviour would be drastically reduced, but that's a different issue altogether). Secondly, I don't know if you were referring to me, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the tone I used. I was making the very serious point that this sort of bullying and threatening is poisonous to the work atmosphere here and would be anywhere else. I was asking the participants to imagine what it would be like to actually hear someone talking to them like that in the work place — a perspective that I think is very useful to take. If Misplaced Pages is a real volunteer organization, then bullying and threatening as devices to win arguments and drive away real or potential opposition have no place here. Incidentally, in the three years I have been editing on Misplaced Pages I have never had an encounter with Ottava Rima, either positive or negative. I based my comment purely on reading (to my utter amazement) the links provided in the evidence section. Voceditenore (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I wasn't referring to your tone (sorry if the indenting was confusing). Actually, I agree with the gist your analogy, I just think it's not so much an analogy as a comparison to how other volunteer orgs do things. IOW, other volunteer organizations don't let volunteers treat each other like that, so we shouldn't either.

BTW, I've seen similarly bad behavior from people who aren't contributing pseudonymously. I think it's an issue of being faceless, as opposed to nameless ;-). --SB_Johnny |  14:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What Misplaced Pages is not

2) Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Consequently, it is a not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Moreschi (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. Misplaced Pages is not here to nurture a belief in your own infallibilty. Endless warring with people who have dared to contradict you is not acceptable. --Folantin (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Timesink

3) While the usefulness of an editor's contributions to the encyclopedia must always be born in mind when evaluating their editing, if they are distracting others with persistent drama-mongering from editing the encyclopedia, then encyclopedicity ultimately suffers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would word things a bit differently, but this sort of trade-off is inherent in much of our decision-making when we consider sanctions against editors who have a record of positive contributions coupled with problematic behavior. Compare Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Evaluating user conduct for a formulation we have used in the past. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have something on this in the PD, different wording but same basic intent. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. It's worth remembering I am the author and co-author of multiple GAs and an FA; as for Folantin, I invite you to take one look at the masterfully written French opera, and we have collaborated to write a couple of featured lists. The userpages of Awadewit, Bishonen and others speak for themselves. Moreschi (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ottava thinks his contributions can buy him indemnity from sanctions. He's squandered a lot of other users' time which might have been spent improving content on his interminable arguments and vendettas. The price paid for his work here is too high. --Folantin (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the precise reason many local councils have a 'vexatious litigant' clause in their complaints process (I take credit for having written the first one). It is a net detriment to the organisation to continue to deal with a complainant after it has become apparent that nothing (more) can be done in respect of their complaint. Ottava isn't Willy on Wheels, but dealing continuously with complaints both by Ottava and by others about Ottava, without being able to deliver a resolution, is sapping of time and energy.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to avoid, but I think we should downplay any consideration of OR's value (or as some claim, lack thereof) as a content editor because that is a distraction not directly related to the alleged behavioral issues. It has become almost a platitude to preface a behavioral complaint or ruling with a recitation that they are a valued contributor. I question whether anyone saying that has actually considered the matter fully, or whether they should. Arbcom, and most administrative procedure, is not to rule on anyone's personal worth. Passing that kind of judgment could be needlessly and uncomfortably harsh, and could lead to rehashing heated disagreements that have little to do with the matter at hand. Incivility is incivility. Blocks are to avoid disruption, not to punish. By extension, a decision to give editors every last chance before blocking is to encourage participation, not to reward past achievements. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we should downplay or eliminate the introductory half of that sentence because it seems to endorse the position that old timers and prolific editors get a free pass. Everyone is a valued contributor, it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit... as long as they get along. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess you were aiming that at Folantin. Bad indents. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Ottava Rima

1) Ottava Rima has engaged in harassment, wikistalking and frequent bullying, as well as persistent incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. He has consistently made threats and allegations against his opponents in various disputes, without reason for his threats or foundation for his allegations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Per all the evidence. Moreschi (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The Grand Cabal

2) Ottava's allegations of a Grand Cabal who are out to get him, supposedly composed of a number of administrators as well as various regular editors, do not appear to have any basis in fact.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Substantially per Brad here, as well as the evidence of Folantin and Bishonen. It is worth pointing out that if there were really was such a cabal with such a tremendous membership as Ottava has variously alleged (myself, Folantin, Antandrus, Dbachmann, Akhilleus, Dougweller, Bishonen, Itsmejudith, Paul Barlow, Fullstop, Geogre, Jehochman, Gwen Gale, Alefbe, Pascal Tesson, Sjakkalle and doubtless others, my apologies if I've missed anyone), then not only would Ottava be long banned, but Jimbo would be dead of a knife in the back and Dieter would have taken his place, Bishonen would be running the Foundation, I'd be controlling arbcom with a rod of steel and the help of my meatpuppets (some of whom would be on arbcom anyway), Doug and Judith would be running MedCom, and we'd all be checkusers, oversighters, and oversmiters - that is, we'd be Kings. That we aren't suggests we are simply all not part of the Grand Cabal, that the Grand Cabal is a figment of imagination, and that the editors listed have in most cases had no interaction at all, in a few have had occasional interactions in various forums due to shared interests, and that only in one instance has there been any degree of close collaboration. Folantin and myself have, it is true, worked closely over a number of projects (List of major opera composers, List of important operas, and hopefully Purcell articles in the near future, as well as a time a couple of years back when, working with Elaragirl and a number of others, we were simultaneously active in deletion-related forums). For Ottava to suggest we have conspired against him, when I did not participate in his RFA, did not participate at the Persian Empire dispute, and was only one (and not especially prominent) voice speaking out against his disruption at Ariosto and Orlando, is simply ridiculous. Moreschi (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:SB_Johnny

Proposed principles

Amateurism

1) Misplaced Pages contributors need always bear in mind that people contribute to the encyclopedia as an avocation. With that in mind, we need to always appreciate one another as peers who share the same goal. Some of us are experts, others dabblers, but we should always assume good faith when it comes to our fellows, especially in heated debate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think comraderie tends to be forgotten sometimes. --SB_Johnny |  22:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:JzG

Proposed principles

Ownership

1) Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, no individual owns any article. Florid rhetoric exaggerating the importance of your own favoured text () is disruptive and not conducive to the spirit, practice or smooth function of Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

OR's comment at Bish's talk page is hyperbole of the most counterproductive nature. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by Ottava Rima

Proposed principles

Edit warring

1) All users are reminded that discussion is primary to working on an encyclopedia. Edit warring and making significant changes to pages without consensus is inappropriate. Additionally, edit summaries in disputes should be civil and neutral.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed based in part from Dbachmann ArbCom case and other cases. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Fail to see the relevance. No evidence of any kind of edit-warring by anyone has been presented. Further, "making significant changes to pages without consensus" is entirely appropriate and encouraged per WP:BRD. Moreschi (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Folantin and Moreschi's relationship section Encounters #8. Per , the page was reverted 24 times. Many of the edit summaries included comments like: "revert - If you want to revert it to the crappy old version, first justify it in the talk page", "Revert to Fullstop - The old crappy version is so full of misinformation that cannot be useful in any sense", "rrv to Fullstop`s version, please read WP:VANDAL, cleaning up a poorly written page, is not vandalism", "revert - Where did you count the people who support this misinformation?", "rv unproductive revert from unproductive user." - Dbachmann, "revert - Uninvlved users should first read the discussion and then elaborate their justification in the talk page (before doing any drastic edit)", and "revert; that rationale doesn't make sense". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Discounting reversions of reverts from drive-by edit warriors (and that really is disruptive, entering a dispute with a revert without bothering to justify yourself on the talkpage), the editor doing a substantial chunk of the reverts is...you. Moreschi (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

1st revert after pointing out there was no talk page consensus. 2nd revert after pointing out that four people were against the page being removed in that fashion per talk page discussion. 3rd reverting Alefbe's reversion of NuclearWarfare who points out there was no talk page consensus. 4th revert per the blanking being based on the page being "crappy" and there was no consensus on talk page. 5th revert per straw poll that found that less than 40% were in favor of removing the page. 6th revert per straw poll finding no consensus for the revert. Three straw polls, 2 RfCs. After each were given some time to have discussion I acted. The last one was 20 days since the page was protected which was enough time to have the straw poll determine an outcome. 6 reverts, most following straw polls on talk pages, spread out over 35 days. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

All users are human

2) Each user should remember that, except for bots, all users are indeed human. As an extension of WP:HUMAN, each user has feelings, has thoughts, and makes mistakes. Humans are naturally defensive, emotional, and sensitive to the judgments and opinions of others. Empathy is the primary component to cooperation, and it is key for the success of an encyclopedia where all people are welcome to edit.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed based as an abridged form of . Ottava Rima (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Indeed. Criticism of the actions of others should always be accompanied by a degree of voluntary restraint, particularly in bona fide content disputes. Moreschi (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a statement of the obvious. I'm interested in where this is going. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Jehochman and Ottava Rima

1) After a series of fruitful communications between Jehochman and Ottava Rima, and per , Jehochman and Ottava Rima have a better understand each other's positions and the events surrounding the affair. There is no longer a concern among the filing party about Jehochman's use of administrative authority in this matter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per the immediate technical concern leading up to this matter being addressed in a timely and respectful fashion. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ottava Rima's content work

2) Ottava Rima is highly active in all levels of content and content reviewing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per: 210 DYK with over 85 shared with others; approximately 42 GA with many shared; and 9 FAs with 8 shared. Ottava Rima is highly active in content processes: over 350 edits to Template talk:Did you know; over 400 edits to Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know; over 50 edits to WP:GAN and Misplaced Pages:Good articles; over 75 edits to Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates; and participation in 24 FARs and 210 FACs. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Indeed. To what extent we take Ottava's useful contributions into account when reviewing his disruptive behaviours is, of course, up for debate. I will leave this to the arbitrators, pointing out merely that the experience of Mattisse would not seem to recommend overmuch generosity (I am not overly familiar with the Mattisse case, but on cursory review it would appear to be comparable to this one: a contributor who makes many productive edits while simultaneously exhibiting a severe WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in disputes: Ottava, evidently, does not sockpuppet, and there are other dissimilarities, but the basic point stands). Moreschi (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure this is a fact relevant to the case. I note some of the contributions have been queried already, and do not think descending into a discussion of the merits of various contributions is the way to go. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's irrelevant. I'm pretty sure all the people posting evidence against Ottava are highly productive users and they manage to edit Misplaced Pages without causing major drama. They would probably have been even more productive had Ottava not wasted so much of their time. --Folantin (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been on record attacking the FAC and GA process, and have been for a long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What has the GA process not functioning properly in 2006 got to do with your disruptiveness, which is what this case is about? --Folantin (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You stated that those I argue with are "highly productive". It is impossible to be such when you have fought against the processes that denote "high productions". Also, others used as evidence of highly productive have already been determined to be destructive, such as Dbachmann by ArbCom. I, on the other hand, had no previous RfC, no previous ArbCom casae, and the blocks given during the above time were overturned by community consensus, which suggests that during that time, your view of my edits does not reflect the majority, but the majority ruled that the above users, with no Featured Articles, with attacks on the processes, and many controversial and problematic edits, especially at "Nationalism" articles, suggests that your actions should be questioned. While you were edit warring and promoting the removal of a 60k article that was previously a FAC nomination, I created multiple FAs, multiple GAs, and multiple DYK. You spent two months trying to eradicate an article while I spent those two months creating dozens upon dozens of articles for Misplaced Pages while working with people of all types and backgrounds to do such. If you had content work, you would have provided it for the evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I forgot I was one of a group of "five vandals dead set destroying this place" and treating Misplaced Pages "like a whore" . I have 8000 edits to article space compared with your 5000. I have significantly improved Misplaced Pages's coverage of the history of Iran from the 16th to the 18th centuries over the past couple of years. As part of this work, I even bought and read the only full-length biography of Shah Abbas then available - it's in French. If people want to submit their articles to GA and FA that's fine with me. What's not fine is disruptive users trying to employ their FA and GA count as a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. --Folantin (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You have 8000 edits since 2006. Approximately 2000 a year. I have 5000 edits since the beginning of 2008, which is 2500 a year. I also have many, many edits in which I put 5k, 10k, 15k, and 20k worth of text down at a time. I don't use huggle, nor do I patrol for vandalism. "I have significantly improved Misplaced Pages's coverage" by deleting 60k pages because you thought that they were badly written? You edit warred during it. You ignored consensus during it. You attacked others of not being "experts" or being "nationalists" while the only people agreeing with you happen to be the same people that show up to multiple pages like this. I do not have a group of people I ask to come to pages in order to push my interpretation. I have made compromises with people that severely disagree with me, like User:Haiduc at Nicolo Giraud. You refused to make -any- compromise and you still do. You still haven't provided an adequate answer to justify your unwillingness to allow for the alternate term. I, on the other hand, worked with a large group of people to get Samuel Johnson on the main page for his 300th birthday. I put together over 20 DYK hooks for John Milton's 400th which were listed during the day. I have done similar things for literature on the French Revolution. I even brokered compromise and peace at Rosalind Picard‎ which had some of the nastiest edit warring and fighting that resulted in bannings of users. Where have you accomplished anything besides make over 200 votes with Moreschi at AfD or aided in an "anti-nationalism" campaign which ArbCom had stated before to be crossing the line multiple times? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima blocked

3) Ottava Rima has been blocked three times within the past year: 5 September 2009 by Gwen Gale (48 hours), 9 October 2009 Sjakkalle (1 week), and 27 October 2009 SarekOfVulcan (1 week). The first block was overturned by Chillum and second by GrahamColm per no consensus. The third block was ended by Deacon of Pndapetzim as "time served" after 13 hours.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per . Ottava Rima (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ottava Rima's CoI

4) User:Ottava Rima has not crossed the line in areas where he has a conflict of interest and has ensured that his real life conflicts of interest do not carry over onto Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ottava Rima's language

5) User:Ottava Rima's language does not include vulgarity nor discuss user's racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, or ethic background in negative terms.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ottava Rima outed

6) User:Ottava Rima's real life work has been the center of discussion by User:Moreschi while it had nothing to do with any ongoing discussion. User:Moreschi has also posted on Misplaced Pages private information that has effectively outed User:Ottava Rima. User:Folantin has brought up non-Misplaced Pages matters dealing with User:Ottava Rima's non-Misplaced Pages work in order to influence discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed per evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Proposed enforcement

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

- Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: