User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 21

Poof

Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Very fortunately, we Yanks have never adopted such things. I'd look pretty shitty in a barrister's gown and wig. Not that I look wonderful at the best of times (i.e., 1982).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Sorry to fool you, but I am actually an American (I proudly represent the lovely state of Maryland in the WikiCup). I just needed an excuse for a visual. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, such is life.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A precedent

Ottava, you may like to look at this precedent for the hassle you had recently. I'm disturbed by the uncanny similarities. --Philcha (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That is rather worrying. It shows continued bad judgement from User:Gwen Gale, and not the sort of temperament I'd expect from an admin. Also, perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that User:Malleus Fatuorum is a friend of yours, which makes me even more worried. Personally, I'm going to have a look at the users admin contributions, and if there is more worrying contributions then I'd be tempted to raise this elsewhere. Alan16 (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

As I've pointed out before - Malleus isn't a "friend". We rarely agree on issues. However, we do talk a lot about the community as we are both very active in the same area (even though we have little mutual agreement on language, grammar, style, or weight). We've worked together on two major articles, but during that time fought a lot. Do I respect him? Yes, I do. Do I trust him? Yeah. Are we pals and the such? Well, maybe in the classic Irish rugby/hurling sense where you might go for a beer after beating the crap out of each other. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I referred to that above. We did not pursue a desysop of her last time because she promised that she would never make such blocks again and she apologized for her mistake. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't know you that well (apart from one incident... Can't remember what that was about...) and I'd just seen Malleus on your talk page a few times so I assumed you were "friends". And this time? Alan16 (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Lar is on my talk page a lot and we are definitely not friends. Etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that "friend" is the wrong word here. How could Ottava and I possibly be friends? We live on different continents and have never met, and are never likely to meet. In fact I've never, at least to my knowledge, ever met another wikipedian. This isn't a social club, it's a collaboration amongst (hopefully) equals, each of whom contributes what they can. As Ottava says, he and I often disagree around the edges—I think he throws commas around like confetti at a wedding, and he thinks I play fast and loose with English grammar—but we still manage to work together in an atmosphere of mutual respect. That's not to do with friendship, it's to do with respect, something that has to be earned. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, I love me some commas like a Brits love sheep. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not all Brits, just the Welsh. Allegedly.--Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could really offend you by saying that there is no difference between an Manchester lad and a Welsh lad. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly Wales is only about 40 miles away, but if you wanted to offend me you'd have to try much harder than that. People from Liverpool sometimes call those from Manchester "woolly backs", but I won't melt your Internet connection by telling you they call the scousers. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Woolly backs?" You may be the mother country, but you've got nothing on us colonials when it comes to sheep jokes -- Euryalus (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Smart

Ottava, Iv'e left some more comments and done some copyediting. I'll be back when I can - maybe tomorrow. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin culture

Sir, how can I read more about 'admin culture' and the behavior of admins at Wikipedia? Are you capable of supplying me with a wealth of information on this subject, or else a modicum of information on this subject? If you and others are afraid to critically discuss Wikipedia's administrators then please let me know about this as well. Varks Spira (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

All you have to do is to observe what's going on around you. Or choose to to ignore it if you prefer. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot in a short period of time. A lot of squabbles that on first read appear to be wholly ridiculous. I know that isn't a fair judgment. I'm keeping an open mind. Varks Spira (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Flore et Zéphire

Hi, just a heads up that the above, a ballet article, is top of the backlog list. I left it as you had expressed an interest in reviewing this type of article. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I totally missed it. That was mostly why I wanted them separated. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, you started reviewing this, but didn't tag it for review at GAN. I went to GAN and tagged it to start reviewing it. Now, here's the catch. As I have flagged to the editor here (and have tagged at the article page), there is a copyright problem - the article leans very heavily on one source, sometimes quoting phrases without quote marks. That source is also the origin of a quote that is cited as a separate source in the article. It will need significant work to pass in my view, but I am hopeful that kathryncelestewright will be able to look at this. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I was waiting to hear back from her on the citation needed before I made any move either way at GAN. I tend to do all of the sourcing concerns at once, and, well, I wanted to hear back before I actually opened up an official GAN. :) If you want to open it up, you can feel free. I will check through everything and give any opinion if you want. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I made a brief analysis of the first half of the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, given the nominator has not made any edits at WP at all since 28 August, and given the copyright issue that is outstanding, i have failed this at GA. If the nominator returns and wants to discuss, I'm happy to do that, and have left a note to that effect at the review page. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The U

Thank you for your comment. The problem is that the footnote follows a sentence which says the University of Miami is commonly referred to as "The U", but at the very most (and I don't read it that way) the reference cited in the footnote merely quotes someone as saying "The U" after laying down a context and antecedent. If there were a press report that said that a survey was conducted and people nationwide associate "The U" automatically with the University of Miami, then we could use such a footnote to support the text. The reference and the article text must match; an example of one person saying "The U" does not prove that it is common (throughout the English-speaking world) for people to do that. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw multiple sources for the term and found it many times in my own search. I an unpersuaded by your statements. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

New sock?

RE: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sister_Kitty_Catalyst_O.C.P..2C_DJ_Pusspuss.2C_Benjamin_Holman.2C_and_an_editor_who_shall_remain_nameless

New sock of Peter? Ikip (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I put forth my opinion over there - there is no personality or editing connection between the two users from what I can see. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:PAID

Progress is now being made at WP:Paid editing. The topic is very important, and I'd love to get the proposed policy back on track. If you have any input, I'd love to see it on the page. Smallbones (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for William Britten 9 part DYK

On September 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles William Britten, Mariana (poem), "The Deserted House", Oenone (poem), The Lotos-Eaters, St Simeon Stylites (poem), The Day-Dream, Sir Galahad (poem), and "Break, Break, Break‎", which you created or substantially expanded.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to Persian Empire

Putting [1] this text on Talk:Persian Empire and then blanking it a second later [2] is pretty silly. I really don't understand why you keep on bringing up WP:MEAT--how exactly do you think I'm violating that policy? I would appreciate an explanation. If you really believe I'm such a problematic user, please start a topic on WP:ANI or whatever noticeboard you think is appropriate, or start a user RfC. Otherwise, I would really appreciate it if you stopped saying things like "You just crossed the line, and this is your only chance I will be willing to give you to go back." Even though you erased that from the page directly afterward, I can't see it as anything but an attempt to intimidate me. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I have already talked to many admin. My two options are ArbCom asking for a desysopping of everyone currently working with Folantin in abuse of the above policy, or directly starting an RfC with such intent. I have received many emails. Your history of performing this same action with her across multiple pages has been noted by many people. Diffs and links have already been provided in public. Your name was also on a list that was given out to people when Dbachmann started echoing Folantin as one to expect to appear. Your appearance only verified the problematic nature of your action and it is 100% exact to that at Talk:Ludovico Ariosto, which is a move almost too stupid for words. It has also been pointed out that many, many sources were pointed out, yet you willfully ignore them in order to echo what Folantin has stated. It is not a coincidence. You can either stop your problematic behavior now, or I will move forward. You may think that I am intimidating you. No, I am promising you that your behavior will not be ignored any longer. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had made it clear I don't want any more warnings. Please, start that RfC, file that request for arbitration, whatever it is that you think is best. But if you're still in a mood to give warnings, can you please explain exactly how I've violated WP:MEAT? I understand that you think I'm too chummy with Folantin, but you haven't explained why that's a policy violation... --Akhilleus (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, you are using their same arguments and using the same rhetoric that has been proven wrong over and over. Having Folantin say something, then Fullstop saying it, then Dbachmann saying it, then you saying it without paying attention or acknowledging anything else is classic use of meat puppets to violate a consensus discussion. Admin should know better than to do such. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, but I am afraid that I don't agree with your interpretation of the facts or the policy. Cheers. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is why an RfC or ArbCom is necessary to ensure that your behavior comes to an end. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You might know this...

Can you think of a way to briefly summarize Oxford Movement, in such a way that it won't baffle readers, but won't be so long-winded that it makes the section unscannable? (The article is question is Mandell Creighton, if you want a context - see the discussion on the talkpage.) – iridescent 01:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Simply put - It was a reactionary movement that opposed the secularization of the Anglican Church while promoting high church views along with claims to a historical alignment with both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Do you need more? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that's great - thanks. If you get the chance could you give Mandell Creighton a quick skim, to make sure I haven't wildly misrepresented the church; I'm not convinced even the Anglo-Catholics themselves are entirely sure what they believe, and I'm certainly not. – iridescent 15:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

When I have time tomorrow evening, I'll open up a full GAN on the matter so I can go through it all, settle any issues, and then allow for the fixes so it can be passed. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Give it another 24 hours or so, as Ealdgyth has found a bunch of extra sources that I need to check and work in if appropriate (see the talk page) so it may look quite different in a couple of days. I'm not at home at the moment and not wildly keen on the thought of trying to rewrite a section on a two-inch screen. – iridescent 2 14:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Request

If took The Disasters of War to PR, would you mind having a look. Ceoil (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The rain is killing my internet, so don't expect anything within the next few hours. After it ends, then I will tackle it. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does rain effect your Internet? Where do you live for God's sake, on a remote island in the middle of the Pacific? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not unless they moved Maryland. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My connection is Satellite internet. Maryland, although between two major urban areas, has little fiber optic cabals out in the countryside. One of the disadvantages of living on a horse farm, it seems. Thankfully, I spend many of my days in DC so I can get online there (while at work, or from the Archives/LoC). But today is not one of those days. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

On my one and only visit to the States, if you can call California typical, I was struck by two things. The first was that between LA and Lake Tahoe—what's that, about 250 miles—was largely wilderness. The other thing that struck me was the "primitive but it works technology", and doughnuts for breakfast. Oh, and the other thing was the completely confounding answer when I happened to ask another skier on a chair lift we were sharing if he was an expert, as he seemed to be claiming. Naturally, being a good American, of course he was. Pity he could even get off the lift without getting his skis tangled. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ski accidents happen to experts all the time. That is what makes the Winter events so exciting. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This guy was no expert, except in his dreams. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it is more true to say that there are no experts on rocketing down steep icy slopes on tiny wooden planks. That is like saying there is an expert on terminal stupidity. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming to believe that skiiing in Europe vs the US is a good indicator of the cultural gap that exists within wikpedia. Lake Tahoe is crawling with "skiing police", telling you to slow down, speed up, get out of the way, or whatever their mantra of the day is. Those kids wouldn't be allowed out without a note from their mothers in Europe. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

-->Ottava. Good man. Rain? We are having a late summer here; first set of shiny days we've had in 3 years. And what am I doing? Looking at the internets. Go figure ;) Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Go out and play in the fields! Go harass some sheep or something! Ottava Rima (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No, cant go near sheep, terms of parole and all that. I think I'll go climb a tree though. Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ottava, that is exactly the feedback required. Good material for work. Ceoil (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Your offer at MF's page

Hey, would you consider looking at Rika's Landing Roadhouse and Alaska Road Commission with an eye to FA potential? One just got GA, the other is even newer but I think it has potential too... Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 04:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll place them 5th and 6th on my list. I've been having to refresh over and over in hopes that these comments go through. So, hard to check over articles that wont even fully load. I should be able to get around to them today. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Mostly at this point a very rough assessment is all I seek, ... are these even anywhere close yet or no, and if no, what (broadly) are the biggest things to work on? I have trouble calling my own babies ugly :). Hopefully not too time consuming. No rush. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 08:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I kept popping back here to see if you'd reviewed it... but did I actually check the article talk? nooo..... Well I finally did and lo and behold there's been a very nice review there since 13 Sept. Thanks! I'll be tackling your suggestions straightaway. Should have the first one done by... oh... mid November. :) ++Lar: t/c 15:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha, sure thing. I tend to do a lot at once so I don't keep up with who gets what notification or where I am half the time. That's the problem with trying to produce real books and articles while working on many things here. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXX

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 19:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Talk:Black Widower

You posted that on the wrong talk page. Can you please move it? :) Thanks, Theleftorium 21:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, I wrote that article long before my RfA and before I fully understood WP:OR. I simply haven't had time to clean it up yet and unfortunately the GA reviewer didn't notice the mistakes (and neither did I as I didn't have time to read through the article during the review). I know this isn't the best excuse but I hope you understand. I'll try to address the issues you brought up on the talk page. Regards, Theleftorium 22:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I know it is one of the old ones. It was one of the ones that I checked before but I didn't mention at your RfA because it was not a GA. I was surprised that it passed without the reviewer bothering to check. As I've said before, this is a failing of a reviewer for not checking more thoroughly. People think that a quick grammar sweep is enough. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I had many of Garycolmanfan's GANs open and I chose the wrong one apparently. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you posted it on the wrong talk page again. :-) It should be on Talk:Bart the Daredevil, not Talk:Bart's Friend Falls in Love, and User:Edge3 actually reviewed the article, not User:GaryColemanFan. Sorry for not being clear before. Theleftorium 22:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

These Simpsons titles are way too similar for their own good!!! >.< Ottava Rima (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

wow...

... with friends like this, Mal doesn't need any more enemies .. ;-) — Ched :  ?  00:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

GA reviewing concerns for Bart the Daredevil

I'm sorry that you are not happy with the review. Did you try contacting the nominator or the reviewer? GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

After a bajillion tries of trying to do it all in the rain (with in and out internet and constantly having to refresh), I think I now have the correct talk page and the correct user notified. LOL. Ridiculous. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not making a more thorough review. I will definitely use this as a learning experience for future GANs that I look through. If you want, you can also take a look at Talk:Lisa's Pony/GA1 to make sure that I didn't miss anything. --Edge3 (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I do check images before passing articles. The only thing that I probably haven't checked that much is the reliable source criterion. (That will change, though) Please note, however, that Internet sources don't necessarily have to exist during the time of the review. As long as there is an access date provided, I'm usually ok with dead links as long as the website can reasonably be assumed to be reliable. --Edge3 (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

So should I pass Lisa's Pony?--Edge3 (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, that review was a bit too short. I think he's learned his lesson though (see Talk:Lisa's Pony/GA1). :) Theleftorium 14:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Characters of Shakespear's Plays

Hi, Ottava. Thanks for your comments. But it is not yet looking nearly as good as I would like it to look. I was sidetracked as always by all sorts of other things in life, but I have gradually been working up some revisions and additions to the section on Othello. I just noticed and fixed a minor typo, which clearly caught your attention; but very shortly, maybe even later today, I plan to add, finally, what I have been working out, combining what you already put there (and you laid down a great foundation) with some additional things I think need emphasis. Stay tuned. (But I know I hardly need to add that. :-) I can't imagine how you manage to stay tuned to so many different things, as well as carrying on the rest of your life.) --Alan W (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Mostly because I try to have my Wiki writing coincide with my real life writing. It makes it easier to do the research for one topic and use it multiple times. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ottava. I'm away for a while. Glad I checked in and got your note on my talk page. I'll be back next week. There are still a few major areas I want to work on before we try for FA. I am still planning to revise at least some things in the Coriolanus section, and I have not forgotten that we need to have a section on Falstaff. I have been thinking about these, and doing some background reading, but I do not have access to my usual references, nor do I have much time (major vacation, traveling). No doubt there are other things I will want to touch up in some way, but those are the major areas I feel need work. Meanwhile, given all the great sources you found over the last 150 years or so, it would be good if you could see if you could fill in that gap we discussed, where you said it was hard to find reviews or criticism, or something like that. ("Critical response", where there is now a gap of over a hundred years.) Just a suggestion. I'll get back into the full swing of things next week. Regards, Alan W (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Smart's confinement

Well done. Nice working with you. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Persian Empire

Hello, Ottava, how things going on with Persian Empire recently? You've defended for keeping the well-known "English name" as a DAB page, so I'm asking this question. Some article that I've worked on has a brief mention of Persia, but the source that I have used for the passage exactly specified "Persian empire" (in Korean though), so I've wanted to link Persian Empire instead of Persia which redirects to Iran. Although I have to admit that I'm not keen at knowing of Arabic culture or history, I've never heard of Achaemenid Empire and it is ridiculous to remove the dab page from Wikipedia. Well, if you're stepping away from the topic, I'm sorry for bothering you. --Caspian blue 18:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite the contrary - I've defended the original page and have been agaisnt it becoming a Disambiguation page. Please see the talk page. There use to be an article there and a small group has removed it and edit warred out the page. I've been trying to build a clear consensus to the return of the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is a confusion on my part. Persian empire is currently redirecting to Achaemenid Empire, which is "shame". Sorry, the talk page has a wall of text and I currently have no time to dig up all arguments there for the mentioned article, so directly asking you could get a fast answer. Anyway, if there would be held a "page move", just let me know. Thanks.--Caspian blue 19:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is what the article looked like for a very long time until it was edit warred into a redirect by those who did not like the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Grand Port

Thankyou very much for your comments at the FAC for the Battle of Grand Port. The article has now passed, and your interest and comments during the process were much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I-70

Hi, I'm not sure if you noticed but Interstate 70 in Colorado has been put up for FA status here. It's been running for almost a month. I'm not sure if you remember, but you called the sourcing of this article into question during Davemeistermoab's RFA here. I'm not sure your concerns were ever addressed. I reviewed only the last section of the article and found problems, and I'm very concerned that none of the reviewers thus far have looked at the sources. If you have time, please look it over and provide feedback, or least a note about whether your earlier concerns were assuaged. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. Real life has been dragging on my time to perform close reviews and I never noticed that the page was listed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Same here. Anyway, I got my wires crossed... it's I-70 Utah that you reviewed, and this is Colorado. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I know you don't "do" these but...

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For your work on writers and writings. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't -not- accept them, because that would be rude. I just feel that they get rather silly sometimes, and I tend to just write long winded messages or emails instead. Thank you. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Drapier's letters

here you go. Ironholds (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

re Please don't

It is not a harvnb function, check the coding, it is different. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, please show me where you created the coding? Please also show me this change in consensus? Cirt (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: It appears the template is used on over 1,000 pages. However, if you feel the template or style of formatting should no longer be used, perhaps you should nominate {{Harvard citation no brackets}} for a deletion discussion. Cirt (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Responses such as User_talk:Ottava_Rima/Archive_6#Elegant_citation_system would seem to indicate a positive response for use of that formatting, not negative. Cirt (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

One article does not a consensus make. Was there an informal poll, a discussion of some sort, post to the Village Pump, etc. ? Cirt (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, though I have politely given constructive suggestions on how to improve the article, (so far) it appears that none of the recommendations have been implemented. As I had placed the article on GA Hold, I will of course allow for the hold period to expire before reevaluating. However the original comments remain. Cirt (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Your tone

The tone you have chosen to use here [3] is a bit harsh. Let us try to please remain polite and cordial in discussion about how to best implement constructive suggestions to improve articles. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[4] Cirt (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Olive Branch

Cirt (talk) has extended an olive branch of peace. I am sorry that we got into it over at Talk:Four Quartets/GA1. I am going to disengage from the page and I have removed myself as GA Reviewer. I hope we can move past it and hopefully in the future interact with each other in a more polite and cordial manner. Cirt (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Here's to more positive interactions in the future. Cirt (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks very much for doing that. Good luck with the rest of the GA Review. :) Cirt (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this [5]. Much appreciated. Cirt (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Nicolo Giraud

Please can we discuss an appropriate formulation for the sentences setting out Fone's views of the poem? You "undid" my last attempt with the edit summary "I could not see anything in the source to justify this, nor is the section about them but about Giraud." but no reply to my comment on the talk page. I have tried again. I'd be grateful if you would return to the discussion at Talk:Nicolo Giraud#Beckford, etc. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Ottava, in case I seem a bit slow to respond, it's because I'm having to deal with some FA issues of my own, and then I have to go out. But I will definitely look at your point more closely later. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Four Quartets

The article looks much better. :) I could come back and reevaluate it for GA, if you like, or if you'd prefer I'd rather not that is perfectly fine and we can wait for another GA Reviewer to come by. Up to you. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to put aside the notes thing, I apologize if it came across as anything other than a suggestion. If I were to do another read-through I would pay more attention to grammar issues, perhaps doing some minor copyediting if that is alright with you. Cirt (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So you'd like me to do some copyediting and see if it might pass GA muster now? :) Cirt (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Four Quartets

The article Four Quartets you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Four Quartets for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Cirt (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You are most welcome, excellent work so far. :) I am glad you were able to find additional material, and especially so that we were able to work things out after all. I hope you are doing well IRL. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that would indeed be quite helpful. Cirt (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for 10 part Ainsworth hook

On September 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Artist and the Author, William Harrison Ainsworth, Rookwood (novel), Jack Sheppard (novel), Guy Fawkes (novel), The Tower of London (novel), Old St. Paul's (novel), The Miser's Daughter, Windsor Castle, and St. James's (novel), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 13:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

These are very well done, congratulations. Ainsworth is much neglected. I have added some material to Jack Sheppard based on the material in the featured article on Jack Sheppard. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Busy bee

That's a lotta dyk'en ! Nice work. –xeno^talk 13:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. Malleus and I also have the FA of the day. XD Ottava Rima (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Hey Ottava, I posted a question about sources on Mal's talk page - and I'd like to get your input on it as well. Basically, what is your opinion of the HowStuffWorks site as far as being a reliable source? There's links to their about and jobs pages in my Mal post. Thanks. Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  14:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Indolence

Generally, I found it well done, although I'm concerned about the depth of discussion that required such an elaborate diagram of assonance. Perhaps that would have been better included in the article on assonance, and the link established. Or perhaps not. Don't know. I think in the second section, you have the wrong verb tense in the first paragraph. In 1819, Keats had left (or whatever). but you're missing the "had". That said, I'm not sure of the motive for this. It seems like the critics have largely dismissed this as "not" among his best work, so why is there an entire article devoted to this. I have the impression that this is a paper you wrote for the uni that you have converted to an encyclopedia article, is this right? I've read several of your other entries, and this is the impression I get. Just an impression. I'm not intending to be negative, it's just the feeling I get after reading them. But, something to think about...if this is what you are submitting, you'll need to assess whether or not this is encyclopedic, or whether this sort of article belongs in a peer reviewed journal, rather than an encyclopedia.
On a different note, at least slightly, I rather like Keats' clever use of the bit from Matthew...the Biblical definition of indolence, as it were... Is he actually implying here, though that the writing of poetry is an act of indolence? A puzzlement... Ruth Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: The deleted message

I would just like to say that I asked iMatthew to not oppose such concerns as you have stated. I pointed out that there was enough responses to make it a concern. Although I do not think it is oppose worthy myself, others might. I think he would need to realize that regardless of how this RfA turns out. I informed him this directly. I believe that he wanted to ensure that there was no disputing or the rest intended, and he removed it immediately. A struck request still leaves a comment for the sake of the conversation. However, this was a withdraw before a conversation, so there is no real confusion. (By the way, I think you made a slip saying that it was an "AfD" instead of "RfA".) Cheers. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, that's pretty much what I thought had happened. However, you'd have to agree that if at this point in his Wiki-career an RfA candidate still requires this level of hand-holding and supervision, some might see him as not quite ready for adminship. Oh, and thanks for pointing out my typo! Owen× ☎ 14:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Romantic poets

thanks for clarifying. I'd really like to see an improved Romantic poets article. Would you be able to tackle that? It appears that the Ode article suffers from the lack of broader context -- big themes of Romanticism, neoclassicism, etc. What do you think? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

don't forget to deal with the "why" templates...Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ottava Rima. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

WTF

I'm just posting this again because I am still so flabbergasted by the fact that you said it:

Rspeer, I have no confidence in your ability as an admin, let alone work in UAA. I talk to a lot of people who work in UAA and I deal with them often. I am sure they will feel the same way. Your statements go against multiple policy and I fear for those who you deal with as there is an obvious gap that can only possibly damage this encyclopedia.

You are angry and not thinking clearly. Unless you want this to escalate, I suggest you withdraw this immediately. rspεεr (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ode

Hi Ottava, I don't quite know what's going on with the Ode FAC, and your reluctance to comment. My thinking is that the pre-FAC version (at least that section) was better than it is now, and so maybe we should return to it, or take the best from both. But that suggestion seems to be upsetting you. It could be that you're just upset in general about the reaction of other people—and if that's what it is, you have my sympathy, because I'm going through something similar myself, where an article I got a lot of pleasure from working on has been somewhat ruined for me. This is a general problem with the FAC process that I wish we could find a way to sort out.

However, if I'm making that situation worse, please feel free to tell me, onwiki or by e-mail, and I'll happily butt out. And don't feel you have to be polite: my supporting it or not won't be affected by politeness, or lack thereof. :) Consider me at your disposal, to comment or not, to help with the writing or not, as you see fit. Best, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to comment because I have 1. emailed Karanacs about the FAC as a whole and 2. it is no longer the page that was nominated, nor is there any real certainty anymore. Too many people are saying too many things that are 1. going against sources, 2. introducing errors, or 3. have little to do with FAC. As such, it is no longer a FAC at all, as the process ended a few days ago and entered into something that Alice may have experienced. The worse thing is that 7 people have completely rewritten large chunks of the page and only one bothered to support after doing so. So, massive changes and nothing to show for it. I have other pages to focus on until I hear back from Karanacs. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, those are all fair points. I'll hold off from commenting any further for now. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Ottava Rima. You have new messages at Hamiltonstone's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Listing people in image caption

Hi there. I made this change (which you reverted) for two reasons:

1. Printouts of the article contain the information
2. Readers don't need to mouse over the image and look at their browser's status bar just to find out who the people are

I don't really understand your remark that "It uses a special command so that they don't have to be listed". I think my edit improved the page and I'd like to restore it. What do you think? --Doradus (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are redundant. It was set up so people could find the names in the images if necessary. The "right to left" would only be important for those who can see visually. Thus, there is no way to claim that actually listing the individuals would be appropriate, especially since it would be taking up room in a completely unnecessary way. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, none of your points addressed my two reasons above. Printouts of the page have no "cursor" to place over the people's faces, and I'm sure I'm not the only one using a browser who prefers not to be required to mouse over images. I believe my additions were neither redundant nor unnecessary, and I wonder if you could agree to a modest lengthening of the image caption as a reasonable price to pay for these two benefits? --Doradus (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That isn't how things work. Your two points do not apply in any kind of regard. The caption would be completely unnecessary and violate the caption guidelines. There is no possible benefit from listing many people on one biography in which it 1. doesn't represent the whole group 2. nor really pertinent to the article. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree and have restored the caption to a state I think is consistent with the spirit of WP:CAP#Special_situations. Perhaps we can continue this discussion on the article's Talk page if you still disagree. --Doradus (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So, what you are basically saying is that your only intent is to edit war until you get your way? Are you asking to be blocked because you refuse to accept that redundancy and unnecessary assertion of such material is inappropriate? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course I have no interest in an edit war, and I hope we can resolve this amicably on the article's talk page. --Doradus (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You quoted the guideline that says 100% not to do what you are doing. "Larger groups should have an index photo with numbered silhouettes and a key listing each person's name." is rather clear - the image is -indexed-. What do you think those numbers are at the very bottom? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Why such a harsh tone?

Hi Ottava Rima

I am absolutely mystified why you should write in such incivil terms to me when all I have done is expressed an opinion on a board. You think I understand nothing about what the boards are for? I'm not sure that's true, and in fact I used to weigh in quite a lot on RSN without usually disagreeing with the other regulars. I know we had a run-in before over what I also think was a very minor issue. All I can think is that you have completely misunderstood my purpose in contributing to the encyclopedia, which makes me a bit sad. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you think it is incivil shows that your judgment is flawed in the matter. Being told you are wrong is not incivil. If you want to promote things that completely go against our policies and are destructive to our encyclopedic integrity, then you have no real justification of being "sad" except in realizing your own actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to promote things that completely go against our policies and are destructive to our encyclopedic integrity. A question was posed to a board, for editors interested in sourcing issues to comment on. I'm an editor interested in sourcing issues. I commented on it. Don't you want to encourage people to participate in boards like RS:N? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You insist that a guy who has no publications on Oscar Wilde is an expert on Oscar Wilde's sexuality. That alone should deserve a block for disruption. There is no way to logically make such a claim. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, in the noticeboard discussion you have referred to the WP:Fringe policy. In the context of the Wilde debate, Maynard is better called a minority view rather than fringe (if Maynard said Wilde was from Venus, or was a 500 year old woman, that would be fringe); the relevant policy would therefore be WP:Undue - is Maynard's view of sufficient notability to be cited, and form the basis of a key section, or not?Martinlc (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Fringe views are minority views, and minority views are fringe views. There is no difference to them. Undue is not for minority views. It is for minority -aspects-. That would be the "sexuality" section vs a section on Wilde's writing. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Ottava Rima. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (This is me, of course. I'm finding this very heavy going. Hopefully we can get some uninvolved and disinterested comment from the wikiquette people. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

But I'm not intending to post further on that topic. I entered into the discussion on the quality of the source in good faith. As you know, I haven't edited the article, and I don't intend to. My edit summary for my last edit was "final comment". Please feel free to go ahead and initiate an investigation of your/my behaviour in this case, and in previous cases if you like. I am completely mystified why you are so angry with me, or indeed with the other editors who disagreed with you on the status of the Maynard article before I weighed in. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Ottava Rima. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sorry it's come to this. NB that I'm not calling for a block or anything. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I know you mean well ...

I know you removed my comment with the best of intentions Ottava, but I really did and do mean it. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I know you do. However, it would be nice for you not to be blocked for over a week, as the word "fool" now equals a week, so your terms must equal far more. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If wikipedia's governance has now degenerated to the point that calling a spade a fucking shovel is a blockable offence then I have no place here anyway, and neither do you. Wikipedia's long-standing problem is that very few have the courage to stand up to the pov warriors, because it's a hiding to nothing. I'll not be backing down, whatever the consequences. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You fools! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I know what he is doing, but you being blocked for a week will only encourage him to do it more. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If I get blocked at all I will go nuclear. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now that comment is rather teenage emo angsty. You should have expected editing that page that some Fenian would be after you as not pushing their view hard enough. Don't act all surprised once it happens. I mean, gesh. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in the least surprised, and in fact I welcome it. The Irish Republican nonsense has been tolerated for far too long, time that changed. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Bramall

What was that quote you gave me I said I'd use? Majorly talk 16:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I don't know. It seems like forever ago. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It was one about it being one of the best preserved houses in England. But it's not necessarily needed. Could you have a look over it please before I take it to FAC? Thanks, Majorly talk 18:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ottava

I am a little surprised by your endorsement of Kww in the RfC and I would not be surprised if A Nobody is not particularly hurt. After all, he praises your good arguments as the 54th supporter in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ottava_Rima#Support. In fact, they make it seems as if A Nobody opposes practically everyone because he has too extreme of an inclusion criteria and yet http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/rfap/index.php?name=A+Nobody confirms far more supports than opposes. And actually reexamining most of these, he typically cites a few different reasons for supporting or opposings. He only has out of nearly two hundred RfA votes only a handful, i.e. only those they cite in the RfC in which he strongly opposed based on weak AfD votes, but these choice examples are in actuality the clear minority approach he takes and a misrepresentation of how normally approaches RfA. Anyway, I would be interested in your opinion about this. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

sorry you are having problems (below) Ikip (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not mean to make it personal nor do I have any personal concerns against him. On principle, the abuse of RTV like that is troubling. I read this as "should he return after agreeing one more time to leave" - one last chance not to repeat it. From what I can see, his talk page is still active so he has not used a RTV lately. So, there is no worry about a ban, no? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

On your empty threats

Ottava, you have nothing on me. Your threats are empty, hollow, meaningless, and foolish. I defy you to produce anything. Go on: do it. Your threat by e-mail to have my desysopped was particularly odious. The proper response to bullies is to stand up to them, and to you, Ottava, I call bullshit. Antandrus (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing on you? Antandrus, I sent diffs to Arbcom of over 11 different pages in which you meat puppetted and reinforced your friends, threatened to block, made aggressive warnings, and basically reinforced people that were blatantly acting disruptively. I've been constantly sending emails about the situation over the past month. Do you think that when your group decides to mess around with what Wizardman clearly said was inappropriate that people wouldn't notice when you pulled these games? It is one thing to pick on and bully unknown users at the RS and Fringe noticeboard. But you went after an Arbitrator when doing this. People pay attention to that and don't look on it kindly. The only bully here is you and the rest of your group. Please, for the sake of the encyclopedia, pack up and go. Your group constantly chases away decent editors while promoting hundreds of policy violations, disruptions of articles, out right trolling, and abuse. It is no wonder that my article creations, DYKs, GAs, and FAs for this whole year out number -all- nine of you for your whole careers here. It is about time that you were kicked out because you have done -nothing- worth while here and have spread a lot of hate and outright distruction. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So you're going to start an arbitration case or a user conduct RfC soon, right? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I guess you don't understand that when I am going to have a case on you guys operating as a group, tag teaming, and other abusive tactics, that the best thing to do is not to respond for someone else in a way that looks like tag teaming that has been going on for a year. The only reason why I have not bothered to initiate an ArbCom case right now is time. However, I have been in constant communication with Arbitrators and the problematic actions have still not ceased. Antandrus's cheering on a clearly problematic block that was no where even close to policy and demanding another that was clearly not a personal attack be met with a block is more than enough evidence that Antandrus has been acting in an inappropriate manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, OR, I don't think I have anything to worry about from an arbitration case, except that it will chew up an inordinate amount of time. I am, however, rather annoyed at your insinuations of abusive behavior, and if going through an arbitration case is the only method to make you stop them, so be it. Honestly, though, I doubt that you're going to go through with it; you've been threatening all sorts of people with desysopping and blocks, but you never seem to follow through on the needed steps of WP:DR...

(BTW, would you be willing to make any of the evidence you've been sending to the arbitrators public? Presumably, it is a compilation of publicly available information like diffs and such...) --Akhilleus (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should refresh your memory with Talk:Ludovico Ariosto and many other instances in which you have joined up with the same group to push the same claims that go against our policies in order to bully people into submission. This little tool is perfectly available so you can program in a few key names and see what pops up. It is amazing what happens. Constantly meat puppetry on RS and Fringe, on multiple talk pages, and at even Arb cases. Your manner of responding and taking turns in responding and speaking for others in responding here, multiple talk pages, and on various noticeboards is almost enough to suggest that it is more than just standard meat puppetry. You honestly think your behavior is acceptable? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

He'll start the arb case to desysop you right after he starts the one to desysop me, of course. "Empty threats" describes perfectly the way that Ottava Rima has been interacting with a lot of people this week. rspεεr (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, come on, let's have an orderly queue here. You wait your turn until User:Maunus has been desysopped for daring to disagree with Ottava Rima [6]. --Folantin (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree? No, he was outright promoting your problematic actions. Consensus was clear and has been clear, and you kept edit warring anyway. You'd think that if the above people were actually caring above the encyclopedia they would tell you not to edit war out a major page against consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Rspeer, there doesn't need to be an ArbCom to desysop you simply because I've talked to everyone at UAA and most have told me that they disagree with you and mostly ignore you in general. As such, you can't promote your blatantly inappropriate ideas there. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hate crimes

Hi, you wrote - And yet above you claim that people should be labeled as hate criminals even if courts don't decide such. That is the very definition of promoting libel. There is no way for you to justify or excuse such a claim. You may have not intended to put words in my mouth but intentionally or not I think you did. I never suggested we should call a crime a hate crime if a court ruled it wasn't. The usual scenario is that a court can't rule sexuality and gender-based hate crimes are such because the law has not yet allowed for this. We call these hate-crime enhancements and they mostly don't yet exist. So, similar to Matthew Shepherd we allow reliable sources to note who considers the crime a hate-crime in accordance with NPOV negating the need for Wikipedia to print anything libelous at all. Also just because a crime is considered a hate crime does not mean there even is a criminal named in the case or that they have been tried for the crime. If a criminal is tried but hate-crime enhancements are dismissed, not mentioned or otherwise accounted for we simply state that. IMHO, it's generally not needed to mention the alleged criminals of hate crimes at all unless it's commonly printed in RS and seen as needed for the relevant content. -- Banjeboi 01:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand - any description of a criminal act is not reliable unless there is a verified court case to back it up. You can have 100 sources saying Ted Kennedy murdered the woman at Chap and we can't claim that simply because there was no trial that proved it. There is no difference here. Criminality is not allowable when a trial has confirmed it. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Current ANI thing

Ottava. Considering this sage piece of advice and this refactoring of anothers comment can I suggest you just drop the thing at ANI regarding WMC? Honestly, I have a lot of time for you - and by contrast exactly none at for Dr Connolley whose attitude I despise. However I think you are flogging a dead horse now and not following you own wisdom. Best. Pedro :  Chat  14:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between Malleus pursuing someone who stated that they no longer would message them again and someone being complained for deleting messages with incivil statements following it. I only operate defensively, Malleus was going on the attack. That is the clear difference. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay I agree, and the edit summary from WMC was pathetic. However (as I have just said at ANI) the thread is going nowhere. Seriously Otava, let it go - Connolley isn't worth the effort. Pedro :  Chat  15:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently, he is no longer an admin which I didn't realize recently just happened. So, I will drop it, as that tiger no longer has teeth. He can keep up the bravado against others without worry of him actually doing real damage. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Good news. Thank you. Pedro :  Chat  15:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I understand that when we feel strongly about things it's hard to let things go. A smoother touch would probably help WMC, but you did become the bigger man in this case!

Hell in a Bucket has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

ANI

I've undone your clsoe. You are blatantly partial and should not have closed that thread William M. Connolley (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't close the thread. Please pay attention. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

[7] William M. Connolley (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, is Ottava actually Pedro? The plot thickens. – iridescent 18:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do have a sock, but he is known. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixing the archive scripts isn't closing it. Cmon WMC read wp:stick otava agreed to drop the incivility part, this horse is dead and rotting Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket - look again, I didn't touch -any- of the closing/archiving of the thread. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Good job you got desysoped Dr. Connolley. You can't even read a diff apparently. Unless you think I and Ottava are one and the same? Pedro :  Chat  20:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies all round, but especially to OR. This should all have been directed at Pedro; I'm on the wrong page. Original comment stricken William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

There has been a thread opened on WP:ANI in which you are directly involved. You may find it HERE. Thank you. Livewireo (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ottava, please slow down on this dispute. Taking it to Arbcom doesn't seem wise at all. Nothing good comes of those hearings. The dispute, as best I can tell, is about a source and a description of Oscar Wilde. Why not get that resolved so we can all get back to editing in collegial collaboration? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, ChildofMidnight, these problems have been happening over the course of a year. This was slowed down. There is nothing about a source. It is about long term intimidation, bullying, and meat puppetry in order to push stuff that clearly goes against our policies in order to harm other users. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sanction

You are now under a civility restriction.[8] Quality content contribution is admirable, but is not a license to mistreat other editors. Please take stock of your situation and reflect on ways to improve your style. Jehochman ^Talk 13:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

When things settle down, ask me, and I will remove the restriction. Jehochman ^Talk 13:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, without commenting on OR's rhetoric, I have to say I'm curious where you have been vested with the authority to unilaterally place "restrictions" on people. Editors can be blocked for incivility whether they're under superfluous "restrictions" or not. Certainly you don't believe this authority comes with the extra buttons the community granted you when they agreed to allow you adminship? If you have the authority to place him under restriction, I must certainly have the authority to take him off? Or anyone else? I don't get it. I'm going to be spending some time away from WP, but I'll definitely be checking back for your reply. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have ot chime in here too. Jehochman no disrespect but being an arbitrator does not give you license to unilaterally decide sanctions. I urge you to take this to the community. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll assume you meant "administrator", Hell In A Bucket, as Jehochman isn't an arbitrator (at least, as far as I'm aware). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification

Only fair to inform you of this conversation - User_talk:Black_Kite#misc.. Is this reasonable? Black Kite 19:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Black Kite 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

JSTOR links

Hi Ottava Rima, thanks for providing the links to the reviews of Foldy's book at WP:RSN, that's very useful. I noticed, though, that they led me to a login screen for a library proxy server rather than to JSTOR; is this what you intended? I was able to get to the proper JSTOR link simply by deleting the proxy server prefix, but in case anyone else is following the discussion it may be helpful to alter the links--e.g. change [9] to [10]. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not in DC at the moment, so I enter Jstor through a proxy server. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sanctions

I am requesting clarification as to your Sanctions. I find it odd that Wikipedia is ran by consensus but your sanction was handed down by one individual. I have initiated discussion on User:Jehochman talk page if you would care to join. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have opened this discussion regarding this matter.[[11]]Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Achaemenid Empire vs. Persian Empire

My ancient history is a little rusty. Can you tell me, as briefly as possible, what the difference is between these two (?) empires and why they should be separate articles? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

They are separate articles and were when the Persian Empire article existed. Did you bother to even look at the history to see what the original article was? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not really that interested in studying about an ancient empire. I'm curious to know if they are the same thing, and if they are, why should there be two articles? And if they're different, why shouldn't there be two articles? Is there a lot of overlap in them, or what? Let's get something understood here: I do not particularly approve of your methods. But that does not make you wrong. (Some folks don't like my methods either, and that doesn't make me wrong either.) I want to find out who's factually in the right in this dispute. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The Persian Empire is a term to signify the Persian imperial state by Europeans. It is a broad term that basically just means "Persian". There were multiple dynasties in the Persian Empire, with the two you listed forming large series of such dynasties. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a lot of overlap in the articles, or is it relatively small overlap? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The article, as pointed out by many, followed Summary Style in a similar manner to other all encompassing articles that link various groups together. The claim was that there was too much over lap with History of Iran, but the proposal was to remove the Persian Empire instead of further distancing the two articles apart from each other, especially with a focus on the Imperial system and how it evolved from Zoroastrian influences to Islamic influences. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me know if I'm understanding you right: Persian Empire is intended to be kind of an "umbrella" article, to cover a number of more detailed topics, including Achaemenid Empire. It is claimed by some users that there is too much overlap, and hence they say Persian Empire is redundant and hence they changed it to a redirect. Is that the core of the dispute? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ottava Rima. You have new messages at MLauba's talk page.
Message added 05:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MLauba (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Coleridge

Made a few edits, but was unsure in places; can you check that the indended meaning wasn't lost. I'm about half ways through, so another few days. Ta. Ceoil (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Literature is fine, you can go ahead and list it there. Thanks very much for the review. :) Cirt (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

McDonald's Cycle Center

I am not sure, if I am suppose to let you know before or after I nominate this at FAC, but this is going to be my next FAC. I guess it will be submitted in the middle of October.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll look back, but I think that you covered all of the sourcing issues so there shouldn't be a problem from my end. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Singin' and Swingin'

Ottava, I've finally completed addressing the issues you raised in Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas. Sorry it took so long; as I explained in the review, I've been crazy busy. Thanks for your review, your input, and patience. --Christine (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pass, dude! Easiest GAC I've ever gone through. ;) --Christine (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Kudos

Looks like you were the only one to detect something amiss. "We've had too many people slip by" indeed.  Skomorokh, barbarian  15:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I use to oppose over the guides that show what to do to become an admin for quite a long time until people started calling for me to be banned from RfA over it. Now I try to keep to just content opposes. Its a shame that so many bad candidates get through. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A comment

While I often disagree with you, in this case I must say you are not wrong. Chillum 01:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

5 part Robert Southey DYK

On October 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Madoc (poem), Curse of Kehama, Thalaba the Destroyer, Joan of Arc (poem), and Roderick the Last of the Goths, which you created or substantially expanded.

—Ed (talk • contribs) 12:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your note

That's kind, thank you, and you're welcome. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Q

Keats's or Keats'. Ceoil (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Always 's unless it is a plural. Keats's, Odysseus's, Wales's, etc. Otherwise, it would suggest there are multiple Keat possessing something, multiple Odysseu possessing something, and multiple Wale possessing something. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That is very wrong. It is Keats's poetry. As someone who has a last name that ends with an "s", I can testify that it has been the rule for my whole life, and every book of criticism that I have verifies it applying to Keats and others. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but even British authors and critics use Keats's. In no variation of English is it appropriate to put only an apostrophe without an "s" unless there is a plural signifier. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The only use of an apostrophe in any relationship with Keats is in Keats's. Anything else is absurd and completely wrong. A cursory check before coming here would have verified the absurdity of your idea. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not an opinion. The google link to the full view works show that it is a very old precedence. I think you should correct your major error and add the appropriate "s" to names ending with "s" in the future before someone marks you down for your mistake. Now, your comment about "grown up fashion" is the end. Please do leave. You came here with nonsense. You continued to rebel in further the nonsense. If you don't like standard English rules which are common to -every- variant of the language dating back over 200 years, fine. But Wikipedia is not the place to soap box such a view. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What does WJBate use? Keats's. Harold Bloom? Keats's. M H Abrams? Keats's. Former poet Laureatte Andrew Motion? Keats's. Robert Gittings? Keats's. Helen Vendler? Keats's. And on and on and on. Your claim of "acceptable" is ridiculously absurd. Edit warring does not require multiple edits. It shows an intent to put forth something in contradictory to our principles. Restoring vandalism would be edit warring and vandalism. The clear blank following the apostrophe is proof that someone went through and removed all of the properly placed apostrophe "s"s. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Even Lord Byron used Keats's. It is time you stop the nonsense. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You honestly think that if there was a sudden disappearance of "s"s with an extra space (i.e. two spaces) following an apostrophe that there wasn't something fishy with it? Now you are trying to justify your vandalism, your harassment on my talk page, and your persistent railing against the English language thinking that my talk page is a platform for your soap boxing. Do bother someone else. I have already shown you over 6000 uses of it and over 700 publications with it directly in the title, and Byron's original letters using it. That alone would have had a normal person apologize and stop. Your persistence shows that you are not here except to cause a disturbance. This is your warning that your actions are inappropriate and unwelcome. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I gave you links to Google Books and to World Cat, and cited the authors of every major and world famous study dealing with Keats's poetry, and you tell me that I need to do research and that I am up myself? You were warned that your behavior was unacceptable. Your trolling and attacks are further unacceptable. Any further response and I will report you for block based on four major policy violations, with your soapboxing in direct violation of WP:FRINGE based on the evidence of usage that you should have recognized and immediately apologized for your behavior after seeing. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong? Did you read the google link? If I am wrong, 6000 books are wrong. If I am wrong, every major critic is wrong. Do you realize that you are trolling? Do yourself some good and either apologize or go to bed and wake up in the morning and think "hmm, maybe I shouldn't continue this and get blocked because I am unwilling to accept what thousands of critics know". Ottava Rima (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you really arguing about an apostrophe? Seems a wee bit heated for something so picayune. Nathan ^T 03:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

An 18 year old comes to my page, starts claiming that thousands of critics are wrong, and that he knows this because his mother told him, and then accuses me of being arrogant. I guess this is spoiled youth who are told that they are wonderful, amazing, and can do no wrong, and then they push whatever comes to them as truth instead of looking at the facts and the evidence before them. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, I just noticed this now. Ouch. Sorry for sparking it. Ceoil (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, random people appearing at my page and then responding to things like that are going to find whatever they can to get into, so, it isn't your fault. But few people understand that the 's is to signify the singular possessive. The word bus must be bus's because bus' would imply that multiple bu possess something. But yeah, a lot of people are not raised with that principle so they get upset when it appears. The same applies for the "word" aint or alot. The problem with grammar it seems. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Me thinks you were being baited. The internet is a wonderful place no? I had thought the Yeats' rule applied to people's names only. Then again I used to get 3/20 in spelling tests as a kid, so what do I know (numbers were more my thing). Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Happens quite often, as that is the name of the game with too many people with too much time on their hands. By the way - if it is Yeats' poetry, how do you differ from which of the Yeat wrote each poem? :P Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... Ottava might want to check out Mr William Butler's page then. He has some more corrections to do because he obviously knows so much more than the numerous MoSs that exist that say either is acceptable. Alan16 (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already brought it to Ceoil's attention, Alan. Please do some research. Since it is an FA, the articles have to be consistent with the naming. The Keats's is used in FAs already and per the scholarship. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The WB Yeats article is a FA as far as I'm aware, and it uses the method I use. There are scholarly books which say "Yeats's" just like there are scholarly books which say "Keat's". Look this argument was all kind of pointless, but what really annoyed/annoys me is that you insisted that my method was "fantasy", and still do in fact. The contexts in the Yeats and the Keats article are the same, yet you still call my method "fantasy". Why? It is clear it isn't. To be honest, I would have went away ages ago if you'd just admit that you were wrong, and that my method is acceptable. Alan16 (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already demonstrated the ridiculousness of pursuing Yeats' and others and what it would grammatically mean. If you want to use the ridiculous implications of multiple Yeat or multiple Keat, go ahead. However, the pages here should reflect scholarship. Now, you were asked multiple times to stop using my talk page as a soap box to post your grammatical longings. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

to Alan: drop it. Ye disagree. Big deal. A Ottava says, you just turned up out, out of nowhere, on Ottava's talk jumping in our conversation, all angry and righteous. Not an ideal way to conduct. And for the record both myself and Ottava have worked extensively on the Yeats page. Ceoil (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Commas

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Thanks for making me chuckle. Graham Colm Talk 14:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Laugh it up while you can. I may just decide that I am serious and start campaigning. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

spam

I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched :  ?  04:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. I have mentioned your RFC on ANI, here. Regards, Bishonen | talk 10:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC).

Unblock

{{unblock|Highly inappropriate block. I'm taking those involved to ArbCom because they aren't even attempting to hide the abuse. I have the right to start an RfC. I also have the right to recreate a page that was not deleted in process. The block is harassment and nothing more.}}

Rd232 looks to be considering an unblock, do you have comments as to his suggested way forward? –xeno^talk 17:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Would be rather impossible since the only involvement I've had with Bishonen is the RfC and her coming and editing things inappropriately at the Drapier's Letters while it was at FAC (Ironholds and I were the nominators). As you can see from the RfC, there are dozens of diffs showing abusive behavior by Bishonen. To drop that when Majorly and John Carter have signed off on it would be impossible also. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, well, let me suggest it to you as clearly as I can:

• you're currently under a 1 week block, and if on your return you pick up where you left off, much more drama will result, with who knows what outcomes.
• I'm suggesting as an alternative a probationary unblock, under which you agree to return to content editing, and to drop all the outstanding DR issues concerning other editors (if they're that egregious, others will deal with them, right?). Others remain free, of course, to address those DR issues, and you can return to them if you think it absolutely necessary when the probation runs out. The 1 week block would be suspended, but reinstated immediately if you breach this, or otherwise proceed with vexatious DR before the WikiCup is over. (As to "vexatious", use common sense - and you can ask me for advice beforehand if you're not sure.) When the Cup is over, the situation would be reviewed to see if further action is required. The probationary unblock should be understood as in no way prejudicing any future sanction, if the community deems it necessary. OK? PS As to your remark above about the RFC being signed off, that's no obstacle - the RFC is not in progress, so it's not a current problem. If others start a new RFC (using whatever new or old evidence they wish), that's their call, and you need not be involved (and under the terms of the probation, could not be). Rd232 ^talk 19:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I will not allow for the RfC to be abandoned, as it was done appropriately and properly. Threatening a block or upholding a block because of an unpopular RfC goes against WP:CONSENSUS, and I cannot respect any admin who tries to claim that the RfC is inappropriate. Per WP:BATTLEGROUND, I am doing exactly what is supposed to be done - I am not edit warring nor attacking people. I have taken them to the appropriate forum. There is mixed consensus on the original block, and no support for the probation. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

PS, I will not support any block but an unconditional block that admits that the block was inappropriate and not within policy. Reinstating a deleted page is completely acceptable, seeing as how it can happen even after an AfD. There was no notification for deletion, nor was there an AfD or an CSD. There was no way to claim that a restoration of an RfC would be inappropriate. Suggesting that an RfC causes disruption is a blockable offense is also not within policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You cite WP:Consensus, but it's for exactly that reason that I proposed a middle ground - one which would not require a lot of people to either accept a reversal of a block they consider justified, or a lot of other people to accept a block to remain in place which they consider unjustified. It's an attempt to minimise drama and permit a cooling off period. In view of this, I'd ask you to reconsider your apparent rejection of the idea. I think this is both in Wikipedia's best interests and in your own. PS Before replying, you might want to take a break from the screen... grab a cup of tea or something and reflect. For example, do you think further involvement of yours in the very near future in any DR on these issues would be more or less likely to make them be taken seriously and at face value? Rd232 ^talk 20:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Rd232 - 1. I posted an RfC alleging severe abuse and provided lots of evidence. 2. I was attacked and one of the involved users deletes the page even though it clearly had examples dealing with them. 3. I was blocked for restoring something that was done properly and there was no AfD ruling to prohibit me from recreating. 4. There were no warnings on any of it. The result of all of this? If I back down, and if I withdraw a 100% perfectly good RfC, that would show that bullying and intimidation, working with friends in a large group, and attacking people is the appropriate way to act on Wikipedia. I am here as a content contributor. I slave at working on content. The above actions by those people make it impossible to do so. To back down and give them more power is highly inappropriate. I will not back down in the face of abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I was trying to find a compromise without making a judgement on the merits either way, since that would take vastly more effort, with little prospect of anybody listening to my conclusion. Anyway, you're unblocked now, so, go well. Rd232 ^talk 21:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I thank you for your willingness to look into the matter and seek compromise. If the whole dispute wasn't political and done in order as a show of strength around Bishonen, I would have accepted your offer. However, the reason why problems happen is that people back down too quickly when faced with such political threats. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked your account for 1 week due to disruptive behavior. There are two matters at hand here.

• Unnessecary reopening and persistent pursuit of a resolved conflict, which is considered a form of disruptive editing per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The RFC you created on Bishonen was a repeat of the already closed RFC which concerned this matter. Reopening and prolonging an already resolved conflict wastes time and effort.
• Recreating the RFC after it was deleted, and then calling for the admin's desysopping on ANI is a combative battlefield type behavior which also represents a will to fight for the fight's sake. Wikipedia is not a battleground.

The block time of one week is long for a offense of this nature, but I have bloced for this extended time period because uncooperative, and combative behavior has been a concern previously. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree about it being resolved. But you're free to your opinion. Majorly talk 13:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sjakkalle, seeing as how the evidence in the two RfCs are very different and the signers are very different, you cannot claim that it was a "repeat". Furthermore, it followed new evidence. And I have the right to recreate a page that was not deleted within our processes. You, as an admin, would know that. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Majorly. Anyone who believes that the dispute was resolved is in serious need of a reality check. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't unblock because...well, it wouldn't be appropriate. I do, however, request that the block be reviewed in terms of purpose and length. There is an argument that the RfC was deleted out of process, and any inappropriateness in recreation would have been eradicated by a failure for certification. Whilst I too would respectfully urge Ottava to try to not react to every admin error, mistake or whatever with cries for desysopping, I question the purpose of such a block as a preventative measure to protect the encyclopedia. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this needs to be checked. This, at least to me, sounds like a rogue decision. Also, disruptive editing, especially of this nature would earn more of 24-48 hours at most, 1 week is a bit much, Don't you think? Obvious the problem at hand should be considered first.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 13:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Compare

RfC 4 to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bishonen_3 RfC 3]. Very, very different grounds and very different evidence cited. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Claiming it is a repeat is absurd. Besides, some people took the previous RFC as a joke instead of taking it seriously and looking at the issue raised. Majorly talk 13:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would support an immediate unblock....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

First off in what way is the issue in the RFC resolved? The last time it was dismissed off hand without review of the evidence. Secondly, since when is asking for scrutiny of another user's behavior a blockable offense? Perhaps the blocking admin should reverse this block and seek advice regarding it from the community. Chillum 14:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BATTLEGROUND, people who are brought up with evidence of inappropriate behavior can, with their friends, cry Battleground and have the other person blocked. Thus, meeting the very definition of battleground. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Chillum. Seriously, Sjakkalle, when you have Malleus, Majorly and Chillum all agreeing on something there's a very good chance there's a genuine issue. I personally don't think there's a case to answer here, but unilaterally declaring a case "resolved" with no evidence other than personal opinion and blocking the filer of the case is about as textbook an example of "unintentional admin abuse" as one can get. – iridescent 14:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Point of order. He wasn't blocked for filing the RfC. He was blocked for demanding the instant desysopping of Moreschi. That was never going to end well. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He was blocked for "re-creation of user conduct RFC against Bishonen after RFC3 closed. Wild calling of desysop. Failure to understand the problematic behavior" (my emphasis). Given that that's the first of the "reasons" listed, it's reasonable to assume the admin intended that as the primary intention. – iridescent 14:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I see your point. I think however it would have been much harder to make the block if Ottava had just created a new and better formed RfC (I certainly would not have supported blocking for that, given that I only support deleting the RfC because it was malformed). But the yelling for desysopping (and yelling in general) don't help to make his case.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hard to make a "better" RfC when 1. the page was deleted and 2. no one brought concerns about problems related to it to me. Combined with a lack of an MfD, any notification, and that a lot of the evidence deals with them aiding Moreschi or Moreschi aiding them inappropriately, there is no way to justify Moreschi continuing to have the ops. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would think that calling for the desysop of an admin who had a proven history of a year's aiding of a sock puppet in direct conflict with multiple policies, and an admin who deleted RfC listing the evidence of it who was involved with the other user in question in hundreds of conversations, threads, pages, and incidents, with a heavy support of the previous admin would be enough to suggest a strong CoI and the need to desysop such a user. So either are very inappropriate rationales. Moreschi was involved in the banning calls by Bishonen and aided by Geogre's sock puppet, while also being involved in Geogre's deletion of Swift's printers and harassment related to that. Those are central pieces of evidence that were listed which he deleted. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ex post facto

Wouldn't applying the rulings handed down in the Law/undertow case to previous cases be an ex post facto application? While I understand your concerns (wrt inconsistent enforcement), I don't think we should get into a habit of revisiting past cases in this manner. ArbCom doesn't do precedent... Not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. Thoughts? –xeno^talk 14:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Xeno - ArbCom declared that Jennavecia's knowledge about Law over a year ago and allowing him was enough to warrant a desysopping. This is only asking for the same motions to be applied to the current situation. Neither are actions that occurred recently, and both lasted over a very long period of time. Evidence was not provided before of Bishonen's direct knowledge of edit warring, inappropriate deletion, ban requests, and the use of Bishonen to threaten blocks on opponents, so there was no true discussion on Bishonen's using the knowledge of a sock in an abusive manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(e-c response to Xeno) Interesting point. I am myself far from decided on this issue. However, even the Law case is, as it were, a bit "after the fact", isn't it? So applying sanctions after the error has been made is, in effect, the standard here. I do think your point about how it might be making a ruling in a matter relevant to a case resolved before that ruling was made is probably a resonable one, but I tend to think that, given the fact there have only been two months between the events being discussed, and the fact that the Geogre case didn't really address the matter of individuals who may have known of the second account before the case, I can see how it might not be a case of "reopening old wounds" so much as, in possibly misapplied legalistic terms, opening a case for the accessories after the primary parties have been tried. Were it longer than two months, or six months at the outside, I might agree with you about the delay issue, but I'm not sure a two month delay to open a discussion regarding the minor players in an earlier matter which didn't directly address the minor players is necessarily grounds for summary rejection of a matter. John Carter (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well met. –xeno^talk 14:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

John - the wording of the current RfC is inappropriate because I did not have the current draft to restore. You could go back and restore the appropriate warning and make changes that you think are necessary (remove Risker if you want, etc). Since you were intended as an original party, I have no concerns if you were to fix the wording. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

So, what is the situation? Is arbcom considering the unblock? Is some admin doing so? I'm not minded to take the matter myself because I'm about to get on a flight and will be out of touch for five hours, but someone should be looking at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Communication is dead. Apparently, the "consensus" of Moreschi's long term friends (Akhilleus, Antandrus, Folantin, Dbachmann, Sandstein, etc) is that he did nothing wrong in deleting a page without appropriate CSD or AfD, and that I am being disruptive by putting up an RfC with over 40 diffs showing long term aiding of a sock puppet in many problematic situations, many of which involved Moreschi and some of the other defenders (like Folantin and Antandrus). According to Dbachmann - "As for unblocking, traditionallly it has helped for the blocked editor to show appreciation of the block reasons and to promise to change their behaviour." - I must promise never to make an RfC that is well sourced again before I should be unblocked. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt, there is a thread at AN/I [12] discussing whether or not Ottava should be unblocked. At this time, consensus is running towards not. Karanacs (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If you ignore that Sandstein, Folantin, Dbachmann, Antandrus, and others are involved and their opinion matters. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that many of the supports for block claim that the recreation of an improper RfC is blockable, when there was no AfD or proper CSD to warrant the original deletion and thus not falling within policy as actually being blockable. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, the block was abusive and the pattern of admins ignoring dispute resolution in favor of using their tools to win arguments is very frustrating. But I do think there is evidence of a battleground issue with your approach, and I repeat my suggestion that you slow down. I am going to try to do the same and to work on some articles once I tie up a few loose ends. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Read below as to the evidence of my trying to work with Geogre and others. 2. Read the quote from WP:BATTLEGROUND that makes it clear that battleground deals with incivility and reverting at articles, and never applies to honest discussion and use of processes. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You may be right. But my main concern is that if you don't take a break from the issues you're trying to see addressed that you will be blocked. There are a lot of admins on Wikipedia who don't tolerate anyone questioning their authority and behavior. And in the end we are here to build an encyclopedia, so it's important not to let them prevail in causing disruption and then taking down good faith editors as scape goats. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND

"Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. You could also remind the user in question of Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks in such a situation. If a conflict continues to bother you, take advantage of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others."

That makes it clear that dispute resolution - RFC/U and ArbCom, are the proper things to -avoid- a battleground. Thus, my actions are completely appropriate in filing an RfC and saying that it would go to ArbCom for the deletion of that RFC by one of the users involved. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What about calling for a desysop on ANI? Which form of dispute resolution does that come under? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 15:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The same thing has happened many times by many people. Having someone who is involved blatantly delete a page without any appropriateness to it is a severe abuse of WP:ADMIN. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't.

You said that you were doing the right thing by using an RfC to resolve your dispute (and I do agree with you on that point, actually). I then asked how raising Cain on ANI – demanding desysops and resignations etc. – fitted into that. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 15:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I started a proposal for desysop over clear abuse of ops. Quite different from demanding it. The RfC was the one asking for resignation -per- an ArbCom case in which the same matter happened and it was determined that such behavior was unacceptable for admin. Regardless, you can see how "fierce" I am - the guy who spends half the day coughing up blood while producing a new page just about every day and a half, a page ready for GAN once a week, and a page for FAC every two weeks along with my real life article and book writing is capable of so many awful actions, such as being harassed by a sock puppet and admin aiding the sock puppet for a year. I'm such an awful person. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You're just repeating a similar set of facts over and over, while ignoring my (very simple) query. Since you claim to have been following the edict that you should use dispute resolution procedures (basically RfC and RfAr), please explain why you aired a squabble on the administrators' noticeboard – not a dispute resolution venue. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 16:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, what am I missing? As I understand this, Ottava filed the RFC/U, went to ANI when the RFC/U was deleted without discussion, and was then blocked for "recreating the RFC/U". Is this not the chronology here? – iridescent 16:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Where do -you- contact administrators to report administrator abuse? Please show the process for desysopping. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A short while ago, Ottava stated that: "That makes it clear that dispute resolution - RFC/U and ArbCom, are the proper things to -avoid- a battleground."

Then Ottava called for a desysop on ANI – I am simply asking how these things (firstly saying that RfC and ArbCom are the proper channels for dispute resoltion, then calling for a desysop in a venue that is/was neither) are consistent. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 16:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite simply - WP:BATTLEGROUND deals with article content. Calling for a desysop is part of the process, and there is no appropriate forum for it, so it doesn't matter where it goes. I posted it at ANI in the thread in which Moreschi made the action clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but to remove the ability to comment on dispute resolution processes is completely dumb. A editor with a colorful history will use dispute resolution often as even months down the line people question their motives because of that history. To deliberately revoke that is to leave them totally defenseless to seek redress when inappropriate things are happening. Is that the way Wikipedia is showing people the door? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If that is directed against me, then either you misunderstood my comment or made yours very unclear... ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 16:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the block is inappropriate. I am not however addressing anyone in specific but that entire process as well. It's all well and good for Arbcom to page ban or whatever in consensus but when they elect to deny people dispute resolution it sets them up to be a victim. O.R. isn't he first person I've seen get penalized for something that is dispute resolution, each post should always be reviewed on it's merits which in this case I found lacking. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Info

This is all from evidence submitted in RFC/U Bishonen 4:

16 April 2008 Geogre's improper deletion:

• "Endorse deletion. Wikipedia doesn't do due process - we do common sense and clue. The article was clearly unsuitable, so why the hell would you want to restore it? I've done deletions like this before, and there's nothing wrong with doing so, provided the encyclopaedia really does benefit. Moreschi2 (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)"
• "Delete per Guy and Geogre. No need to waste time on this. --Folantin (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)"
• "Hmmm. Reasons to endorse: Needless fork trying to get out of a content dispute over OR and UNDUE in the main article. Reasons to overturn and undelete: Process wonkery. Not a tough call, endorse deletion. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)"
• Talk page discussion with both Guy and Folantin praising Geogre for his statements against me.

Other areas with favourable use of sock puppets (both Geogre and Utgard Loki appearing) involving Bishonen and others responding in defense of Bishonen:

• 26 November 2007 [13] - with Moreschi and Guy.
• 20 June 2008 [14] - Bishonen calling for a ban with Moreschi indef blocking and Folantin commenting.
• 2 September 2008 [15] - with Moreschi, Folantin.

There are others, but I don't have the time at the moment to dig up every link. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi has stated at WP:ANI - "I have never been in a content dispute with Ottava that I can remember," 15:56, 9 October 2009. Talk:Ludovico Ariosto and the above confirms that this is false. Folantin also appears. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like Moreschi's last post there was from January - about 9 months ago. The others are even further back. Given that length of time and the "that I can remember" qualifier, declaring the claim "false" is hard to justify. Try a bit harder to WP:AGF, even if you're feeling under siege. Rd232 ^talk 19:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that I took the group to ArbCom just last month and specifically mentioned the actions at Ludovico Ariosto, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[16] "Statement by Ottava Rima" second paragraph. Response by Moreschi - "Ottava Rima is truly terrible". Involved all the way back to the original actions with Geogre. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well obviously I don't. Rd232 ^talk 20:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence against a "grudge"

People claim that I have held a grudge:

• 8 August 2008 I work with Geogre on Sir Charles Grandison.
• 9 August 2008 Invite him with another user to a Peer Review of a page.
• 11 August 2008 I praise Utgard Loki's poetry. I also request an image.
• 21 September 2008 Defend the citation style of an article Geogre worked on.
• 27 September 2008 Trying to work with Geogre on an article we once disputed.
• 11 October 2008 Offers to help work on an article with him when it was at FAR. Follow up with diff to information I linked.
• 25 November 2009 Informing him that I added citations to an article that he had that needed citations per complaints. I also make it certain that I do not mind if he reverts.
• 2 January 2009 I request his insight into a discussion over philology and a dispute involving the classification of Ludovico Ariosto.
• 7 March 2009 I post a series of new pages I created for his opinion.
• 23 July 2009 I inquire about him and a page I was working on in which he commented on the talk page. I ask for his advice.
• 24 July 2009 I ask for clemency so that Geogre is not banned or kept from editing after it was revealed that he used a sock puppet inappropriately.

There are other entries to the same effect. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Certification of RFC

I have contested your certification of the Bishonen RFC. As you may be aware, certifiers of an RFC are required to provide evidence that they tried and failed to resolve the dispute prior to the filing of the RFC. No diffs of your attempts to resolve the dispute were provided. Because you are currently blocked, I will transfer any diffs of your attempts to resolve the dispute to the RFC, along with any commentary you have soley on the certification dispute, due to the 48 hour time limit. If you cannot provide evidence of your attempts to resolve the dispute, I will strike your certification. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your contesting is completely false, as the matters that are linked in the evidence show many cases of DR attempted to be used to solve the dispute with Bishonen interrupting or aiding in their defeat. The multiple ArbCom motions dealing with behavior of Geogre in which -she- was involved is more than enough to show an attempt to resolve the dispute. This deals with her knowledge of Geogre's actions, so it is directly attached to Geogre's actions. All DR with Geogre transfers over to her. That includes three WQA, two Rfar, and two sets of Arbcom motions that led to his desysop. This is addition to the previous RfC which addressed her lying to Jimbo about the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If you could provide a diff of your attempt and failure to resolve the dispute, this would be resolved. Attempts to get Geogre to change his behavior are not attempts to get Bishonen to change hers, because they are different people. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't twist my words. The attempt was to get the problematic actions -stopped-. Bishonen, in aiding a sock puppet, made sure that the problematic actions would not stop. Thus, she was involved directly in the attempts. Furthermore, ArbCom discussed -her- ban proposal against me in which the sock puppets were used to create false consensus to aid her. That is -definitely- pertinent. Your bias is showing. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, but user-conduct RFCs requre that cetifiers demonstrate an attempt and failure to resolve the dispute. Could you please provide your attempt and failure to resolve the dispute? If you cannot, other users who have attempted and failed to resolve the dispute with Bishonen would also be valid certifiers. You can use the email-this-user function to contact them. As a further note, I suggest that you refrain from accusing others of having a bias when they are trying to help you - without my attempts to get valid certification for your RFC, it will be deleted. Hipocrite (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite, if you think that there was no attempt to have the problematic behavior stopped, then it doesn't matter how many links or diffs are provided, as you have blocked out reality. The fact that you posted there first to make the claims instead of approaching me only verifies it. You realized that there is support for the RfC so you are turning to this. You have already edit warred on the RfC. Your behavior here is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion either way as to if an attempt has been made or not. I am certain, however, that contrary to the instructions at the top of the first RFC/U you made, you did not provide evidence that you atttempted and failed to resolve the dispute. I am asking for evidence that you attempted and failed to resolve the dispute, or your certification would be invalid. Please provide a diff of you attempting and failing to resolve the dispute. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that I was not a party of the proceedings in which Geogre was desysopped? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea, nor is it my responsibility to find out. Per the RFC page you initially wrote, "The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts." As you may or may not be aware, I was not active on Wikipedia during that timeframe. Please provide a diff of you adressing Bishonen, asking/telling her to change her behavior, prior to the creation of this rfc. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"I have no idea" - then you did not read the diffs presented, and therefore, you are speaking in what you have just now admitted to something that you did not read. As such, any additional comments by you on this page will be ignored until you show proof that you have actually read the RfC as per what you are supposed to do before responding to it. Your post above will be used as evidence that you are making claims without bothering to look and see if they were true. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed every diff presented. I did not see a diff where you adressed Bishonen and requested a change in behavior. Please provide that diff, and that diff alone. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"I reviewed every diff presented." Apparently not. Furthermore, I only have to -address- the behavior. RfC is about settling the -dispute-. The dispute involves sock puppetry. Please don't make false statements about RfC. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem." From RFC/U - the evidence shows multiple talk pages of trying to resolve the dispute, multiple ANIs in trying to resolve the dispute, ArbCom motions and Rfars trying to resolve the dispute, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Please provide evidence that you attempted to contact Bishonen on either her talk page or the pages related to the dispute. A single diff, either where you write "Bishonen" or that is located on one of Bishonen's talk pages would be perfect, but pretty much any diff you can think of would probably be fine. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, if you read the Diffs you would see that Bishonen was talked to quite often, especially when she proposed to ban me. You are at the end of AGF. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I see lots of times that many people talked with Bishonen, but I don't see you asking Bishonen to do anything. Which specific page should I focus on, and I'll try to find a diff from you that we both think fufills the requirement to certify. How's that sound? Hipocrite (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"asking Bishonen to do anything" - read the RFC/U statement I quoted above. It says "resolve the problem". It does not say I have to directly talk to her about solving the problem. Her -participation- with me when trying to settle a problem is enough. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the requirement is that "at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem ... The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it." I don't see any evidence presented that you "contacted the user." It is imperitive that you show that you "contacted the user," not that others "contacted the user." Please provide evidence that you "contacted the user, and tried but failed to resolve the problem," or else I will be forced to strike your certification. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The evidence provided shows discussions in which I try to discuss Bishonen's ban attempts against me along with John Carter trying to discuss Geogre's edit warring with Bishonen. Both fulfil the requirement. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Which page, specifically, has discussins in which you try to discuss Bishonen's ban attempts against you? It's probably my geezer eyes or stupid brain, but I don't see that in the evidence. Hipocrite (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If you did bother to read the page as you claimed, you would have seen this: [17]. As you can see, there was even an apology for the incident along with other attempts to resolve, with a sock puppet being used to attack me for the apology while Bishonen pushed for my banning. This is an attempt to resolve a dispute that -failed-. Now, I discussed the matter with her at 11:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC), 11:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC), 14:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC), 14:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC), etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where you ask her to stop supporting sock-puppets in that page, but at least you do adress her. I'm happy to draft the best possible "attempts to resolve" section I could out of that page, but I must be honest, and comment that after I do so, if you approve my draft, I will suggest in my own section of the RFC that your attempts to resolve the dispute have nothing to do with sockpuppetry, and that your attempt is invalid. I don't want to be accused of drafting for you in bad faith, so if you'd like to take a stab at doing it with the thought that you could convince me that you attempted to get Bishonen to stop supporting sock puppets back in June 2008, please do. I'll retract my opposition to your certification, however, as you certainly tried and failed to resolve something, though I suggest it's totally unrelated to George and socks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make misleading comments. This is the third time you were asked to stop. Bishonen was asked to discontinue her behavior and Geogre was asked to discontinue his. The sock puppetry verified that the behavior was more abusive then it was originally found. Having a sock in and of itself is not a violation of policy. Therefore, you cannot claim that everyone else knowing about the sock needs to be an issue brought up. Now, the previous RfC -did- bring it up, but this RfC is about quite different aspects. It is about her failing to bring it up in disputes that were attempted to be resolved but failed because no one knew about the sock puppetry but her. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I know that I'm not nearly as intelligent as you, but I really can't parse what you said above. Could you explicitly state what behavior you want Bishonen to change, and where you asked her to change that behavior? That would make it incredibly easy to draft the statement for you. Hipocrite (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen and Geogre were involved in people asking them not to be incivil, to delete pages, to edit war, to make ban proposals, etc. They refused while knowing that a sock puppet was used to aid in their refusal. Bishonen is asked to step down because of her inappropriate knowledge per the ArbCom ruling against Jennavecia for knowing of problematic behavior of a user with a sock and not saying anything about it that would have changed a lot. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you misunderstand the purpose of RFC/U. It's to resolve disputes between users - where two people disagree. What I think you want is RFAR, which is used as an inquisition to force or convince people to do things they don't want to do. You and Bishonen don't appear to have a dispute, instead, you think Bishonen should be desysoped. You should ask her on her talk page to give up the bit under a cloud, and if that fails, you should open a case. Further, you have not presented evidence that Bishonen knew anything about UL being a sock, per my statement on the RFC. Hipocrite (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"resolve disputes between users - where two people disagree." no, the RfC/U was in the administrator section based on administrator conduct. The RfC makes it clear that it is related to not using blocks or taking direct action when they knew that sock puppets were used in an abusive manner and also using the consensus of the socks to aid in various proposals, including ban proposals or to threaten blocks against someone challenging an edit warring by the sock master. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hipocrite - you claim I have a grudge. Explain this set of evidence to the contrary. That goes back -over- a year of me trying to work with that group. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Geogre is dead and buried. Bishonen is not. If you want to convince me you don't have a grudge, show me the same evidence about B. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't interaction with Bishonen. I interacted with Geogre with Bishonen acting with him. Look at Bishonen's talk page and Bishzilla's talk page. All responses to her were inquiries about Geogre and seeking Geogre's advice. There is no way to suggest I had any relationship with Bishonen that could be declared a grudge. The only thing in recent time that she did was edit one article, The Covent-Garden Journal back in early summer and her attempts to remove that Jonathan Swift was serving as a dean when he was defending Irish economic independence on the Drapier's Letters page in early October. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Policy RfC?

I wish you had given me a bit clearer idea of what you were intending to do, because I think I would have urged against this particular means myself. However, I think it might (maybe) be possible to salvage the document if it is made a policy, guidelines, and proposals RfC as opposed to a user RfC. In fact, I think that might be about the only way to save it. Please advise. John Carter (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen is an untrustworthy admin and no policy change can prevent future damage that she constantly causes as one. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not appropriate. Please do not call other users "untrustworthy." Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

False claims of personal attacks are personal attacks. Hipocrite, you have been warned. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your warning seriously. Please don't call other users "untrustworthy." Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Untrustworthy is not a personal attack nor uncivil. It is the opposite of "trustworthy", which is a requirement of adminship. Admins are desysopped for no longer being trustworthy. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's still better to use a different, more civil phrasing, for instance, "has lost the communities trust" or "has lost my trust," regardless. Please avoid calling other users untrustworthy. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Trust, like money, is something you earn. Saying someone is poor is not an insult nor an attack. It is a primary status of being. Your persistence on the matter is troublesome. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I think you should be aware that many people believe that calling others untrustworthy is not the same as saying you don't trust them. In fact, they are different. Observing that someone doesn't have a dollar in their wallet is like saying you don't trust someone. Saying someone is poor is like saying they are untrustworthy. If I gave you my wallet, you wouldn't know if I were rich or poor, but you'd know that I had (checking) only $3 in my wallet - not even enough to buy lunch! Please consider using alternative formulations. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom does not rule if they personally trust people, but if the person has the traits of being trustworthy. Trustworthy is hand in hand with claims of someone being problematic. They reflect actions and the status on Wikipedia, and are appropriate per WP:NPA rather explicitly. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

Support block

1. TreasuryTag 13:38, 9 October 2009
2. Jeni 13:40, 9 October 2009
3. Elen of the Roads 13:44, 9 October 2009
4. SarekOfVulcan 13:46, 9 October 2009 "per recreation of invalid RFC"
5. Folantin 13:47, 9 October 2009 (per Battlefield, see above on what the policy actually says)
6. Tarc 13:47, 9 October 2009
7. Sandstein 13:48, 9 October 2009 (per Battlefield, see above on what the policy actually says)
8. Verbal 13:57, 9 October 2009 "repeated problem editor who refuses to accept the previous outcomes." (even though consensus is always changing and the situation was clearly different)
9. Ncmvocalist 14:07, 9 October 2009 "I am inclined to support a block (not necessarily this block)"
10. Mathsci 14:38, 9 October 2009
11. Fut.Perf. 14:55, 9 October 2009
12. Antandrus 14:58, 9 October 2009
13. DJSasso 15:00, 9 October 2009 (per Battlefield, see above on what the policy actually says)
14. David Shankbone 15:45, 9 October 2009 (
15. William M. Connolley changed his mind to neutral 15:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
16. Moreschi 15:56, 9 October 2009
17. Guy 18:47, 9 October 2009 "The continual escalation of every trivial dispute is a massive waste of everybody's time." - Claims hiding sock puppets used by friends in edit warring, gaming of various processes, and to push for bans of others is "trivial".
18. Crafty 19:32, 9 October 2009
19. Fowler&fowler 19:52, 9 October 2009

Oppose block

1. Majorly 13:42, 9 October 2009
2. Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 9 October 2009
3. xeno 13:52, 9 October 2009
4. Mitch32 13:58, 9 October 2009
5. Fritzpoll 13:59, 9 October 2009
6. Hell In A Bucket 14:01, 9 October 2009
7. Karanacs 14:16, 9 October 2009
8. Count Iblis 14:02, 9 October 2009
9. Wehwalt 15:23, 9 October 2009
10. jpgordon 15:33, 9 October 2009
11. SoWhy 15:35, 9 October 2009
12. Epbr123 15:54, 9 October 2009
13. Apoc2400 16:00, 9 October 2009
14. ChildofMidnight 16:51, 9 October 2009
15. ƒ(Δ)² 17:10, 9 October 2009
16. Atama頭 18:16, 9 October 2009
17. Juliancolton 19:18, 9 October 2009
18. Ceoil 19:55, 9 October 2009
19. Graham Colm 20:29, 9 October 2009

Other

1. UltraExactZZ 13:49, 9 October 2009
2. SB_Johnny 15:25, 9 October 2009

Listed. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonstandard offer

Ottava, do you think you could just put aside the issues you have with a few admins for a few weeks? The "bad" drama level is exceedingly high right now, and we could really use a refocus on the "good" drama of the final dash for the WikiCup. Besides, I think nerves are pretty raw right now, so the kind of RfC/RfArb thing you have in mind won't attract a lot of cool heads. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 20:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen came to the Drapier's Letters page, the first page that Geogre and I disputed. A secondary page to it, Swift's printers, was deleted by Geogre followed by him attacking Sermons of Jonathan Swift along with his sock puppet aiding in the attack. A DRV followed. Bishonen has also been making claims that Geogre never did anything inappropriate, and was attacking Mattisse for pointing out diffs (see above in the section about a grudge) which proved that I bent over backwards to try and make peace with Geogre. The timing of all of this was not by chance - Drapier's Letters was at FAC, a FAC that Geogre previous sunk because of his claims about grammar and the rest. Combined with her other attacks on multiple pages, backing up those who were causing disruption at Persian Empire, Oscar Wilde, and others, it was impossible for me to continue just focusing on editing. User talk:Ottava Rima/Hero and Leander - Yet I was able to put together a 10 part hook, get a page through FAC, have another page about to be at FAC, and many other DYKs since the beginning of the problem. The disruption was not started by me, as I have been busy working on the pages -they- came to in order to disrupt. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent user conduct request for comment

Hey Ottava. I've attempted to fix the entry to the recent RFC you started, but I'm not exactly sure if I used the correct timestamp. I copied the one from your user signature certifying the dispute. Can you take a look at my edit, please? Feel free to correct the timestamp if necessary. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, I was able to look at a cached image - "(which was: 04:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)." That was what it had. I hope that helps. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, MZMcBride - [18] this link would show John Carter attempting to settle the dispute that Bishonen was part of along with the sock puppets being a part of it. It involved 3RR, OWN, and other problems affecting the page listed and the talk page of that page. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about asking you to post—hadn't realized you'd been blocked. I'll use the "04:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)" timestamp. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Certification

I'm getting the impression that you believe I directly dealt with Bihonen regarding this matter, and that, on that basis, I could certify this case. Frankly, having done a quick review of the matter, I don't see it. If you could point it out to me, I would be willing to add it, but I don't see it myself. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't have to deal with Bishonen. You only had to deal with the actions and incidents she was involved in. You went to Wikiquette, ANI, and tried to discuss Geogre's sock puppet aided edit warring at the William Melmoth. Bishonen argued with you about it and defended Geogre's actions. That showed her direct involvement with the matter, and that she would have known that the sock puppet reverts would have proved that Geogre was definitely edit warring on a page he created in violation of WP:OWN and WP:3RR. Her not standing up and blocking him during that was a breach of trust, and instead kept the matter from being resolved. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked

Hi, I have decided to remove the block on your account, which on studying the issues and after subsequent reflection, seemed hasty and unjustified. I think that there is nothing positive that can derive from this. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Graham. We've had almost no interaction before so I hope that you are not attacked for this. I can handle things targeting me, but I don't like it when others become targets. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, I hope you learn from this though. Regardless of the merits of you argument, there are correct and incorrect ways to do and go about things. I think you were incorrect in adding Risker, and overall you lacked diffs to support your case. Yet I think the reason[s] for blocking you was seperate from these, and the kindest word I can think of for those is... - bullshit. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If you saw the original RfC you would have seen that there were far more diffs and evidence. Risker was involved in many FAR disputes and even defended Geogre while he was edit warring against John Carter, and she was used as an admin that threatened to block John for his complaining about Geogre's behavior. I do not dislike Risker, nor was she involved in any of the matters I was involved in. But if she knew about a connection, she did a great disservice to many people that were harassed and hurt by the socking. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The childish demand on this site to assume AGF in the face of overwhelmimng stupidity prevents me from suggesting that the blocking admin ought himself to be blocked. Oops, I just did. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw the Rfc before it was deleted and was unimpressed. Was I unimpressed unough that you should be blocked? Not exactly; they tried to supress dissent through the block tool. The block created an unholy mess, and I fail to see how the blocking admin could not have foreseen that. To that extent, at least, I see the block as disruptive. Appalling judgement. Ceoil (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not wanting to state the obvious though Ottava, you remember that George was quite helpful to you on many occasions, though ye clased early on. You are now using him as ammo against Bishonen. Thats not very fair. Ceoil (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a layered irony in this, in that this ultimately springs from Laura's defence of her friend. But if you look at the voting pattern on the block, its broadly cliques voting in support of each other. Ceoil (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Geogre was never helpful to me Ceoil. As you can see above, I made many attempts to work with him and they were ignored. I offered to find citations for his pages, he ignored them. I asked him questions with mostly them being ignored. I asked for him to look over the Drapier's Letters months later and he ignored that. I honestly tried to work with him but to no avail. And Ceoil, look at the votes again. Cliques? Not those defending me. Xeno, Fritzpoll, jpgordon, Graham, Wehwalt, etc, are not part of any clique, and if they were they would be against each other most of the time.

PS, was it fair when Utgard Loki was used against me? When Geogre deleted one of my pages after bashing my writing on my talk page with two accounts? That these people tried to keep the page deleted even though it was done inappropriately? That they are directly responsible for half of my block log and were cheering it on each time, even though they knew there was a sock puppetry? There was no fairness in any of their actions. I worked in a subject area that Geogre made it clear that he wanted to own, and pulled all stops to try and get rid of me. That wasn't fair. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I take strong exception to Ceoil's charge of "cliques". Ottava and I have collaborated successfully in the past, but we are chalk and cheese, and hardly members of a clique.[19]I

[ec] That's not my memory of events. Geogre was opposed to inline cites per se, but I often saw that you two hashed out detail on his talk. His FAR's were disaster zones, but I do think he was not opposed to thoes of us that at least tried. My impression was that he saw you as well intentioned. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Malleus - ye back each other up. Perhalps I was clouded in my phrasing but certainly there is evidence of a acute philosophical divide in the voting - I would say content vs. the police mindset orientated. I know where I stand on this, straight up, with no apologies. Some of the commentry made me sick, and was so predictable and tired. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You are very much mistaken Ceoil. What I back up, unlike too many others here, is honesty. I realise that you may be unable to tell the difference, but please have the good sense to realise that others may have more integrity than you yourself do. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Malleaus, that's the sort of personal attack that never helps in any situation. You'll help yourself by restating your point using civil language. Jehochman ^Talk 00:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attack, but if Ceoil was offended, I think he is able to tell Malleus himself. Majorly talk 01:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I must agree. I don't see any personal attack either. warrior4321 01:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What I see is yet more more of Jehochman's pathetic attempts at bullying. Go pick on someone your own size Jechochman, if you can find anyone that small. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I imagine you consider that not to be a personal attack as well? It's miles away from the sort of discourse that helps improve this encyclopedia and this community. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC

I'm giving up with this. Please don't ask me to assist with an RfC again. I knew it would happen, but someone has created the cupcake section again, and it's still not certified properly. It's a joke, frankly, and I have become the butt of it. So please do not involve me again. I tried my best, but frankly, I can see where several commenters are coming from. Majorly talk 11:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It is certified properly. You know, if they think it isn't, all we have to do is post on her talk page: "Please explain why you aided Geogre's sock puppetry and resign" and just restart it again. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Then do that. Just don't ask me to assist you. I'm fed up with this shit. Best wishes, Majorly talk 14:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Pong. Ceoil (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN

Sorry, that's rubbish. Ikip will take any chance to have a go at Merridew, and he needs to stop it. The thread is about the WQA, not Ikip's grudges. Black Kite 16:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, I am causing disruption? I'm trying to stop Ikip derailing the thread. Black Kite 17:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup submissions

Hi, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Why should you get credit for these?. iMatthew ^talk at 18:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi: Can I ask what it is that you (or others) have done that has caused this furor I'm noticing everywhere? I noticed that you said on SandyGeorgia's page: "I was unblocked, after it was determined that blocking someone for restoring a deleted RfA that was deleted out of process by someone involved was not against policy and consensus could not override policy." Are most of these disputes on Wikipedia about controversial articles where one side wants one thing written and another wants another thing written? Or does it get way more complex than that? Varks Spira (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a timeline for you:

1. 10 April 2008: A FAC on Jonathan Swift related article came to Geogre's attention.

2. 12 April 2008: Geogre edits the page and makes his first comment about the sources and the page.

3. [20] and 12 April 2008: I respond.

3 13 April 2008: I create a page on Jonathan Swift's printers.

4. 14 April 2008: Geogre attacks another Jonathan Swift related page, Sermons of Jonathan Swift, after it received praise by a third party.

4. 15 April 2008: We fight.

5 During this time: I take his attacks against my other articles and against myself on my talk page to WQA and then I remove them and attacks from his sock puppet Utgard Loki were soon made on my talk page [21].

5. 2 hours later he deletes the Swift's printers page. WQA comments and ANI. After discussion at ANI, it is recommended that I go to DRV.

6. 16 April 2008: the page Geogre deleted goes through DRV and is restored. Geogre, Guy, Moreschi, and Folantin all fight to have the page kept as deleted.

That is the beginning of this current mess. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Geogre seems to be a difficult person to deal with. "Swift's printers" might not have been the correct title for the article, or it might have actually been correct, but an article dedicated to printers who worked on getting Swift's works put into print is definitely worthy of an article. You seem to have written a fine article in the draft mode; it's a lot better than my article on Wikipedia administrators. How can someone like Geogre be an administrator? Anyhow, I see that the dispute centers on Jonathan Swift-related articles and wrongheadedness in writing them. Thanks for the answers. There appears to always be Wikipedia article(s) lurking behind these disputes. Cheers, Varks Spira (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The original Swift's printers because the basis for Motte v Faulkner. The dispute later went to Christopher Smart, when I had 12 books that claimed Smart was an important Freemason and those on the Freemasonry project decided that he wasn't. I reverted 4 times across 3 pages and it was deemed edit warring by Moreschi, who you can see involved above. He indef blocked me, and Bishonen, with Geogre and the Utgard Loki sock, called for my banning from the project. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So Geogre won the debate about not having a "Swift's printers" article? This call for your banning is a little extreme considering it was only an argument about whether or not Christopher Smart was a freemason. Almost seems like if you lose an argument about the writing of a Wikipedia article then the intensity of that argument continues to haunt you afterward. Either way, I think the standard reading is that it is currently unknown/undecided whether Christopher Smart was a freemason or not, and that debate between scholars is actually well documented in the article about Christopher Smart. Is Smart's article balanced at this point? It seems to me like there is very little room for dissent on Wikipedia. Varks Spira (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No, he lost the debate because many prominent Wikipedians told him that he abused his ops in a personal dispute. So, he set about getting revenge and many of my blocks in my block log are directly attributed to it. By the way, Christopher Smart won out as a freemason, as all of the biographies declare him as such and consensus allowed for it. They don't actually care about the pages and move onto the next one. They moved onto Talk:Ludovico Ariosto next. After that, they went after Talk:Persian Empire and then Talk:Oscar Wilde. When Bishonen showed up to cause problems at Talk:Drapier's Letters while it was at WP:FAC, I put up the RfC against her. And thus, everything we have now. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's actually incorrect. Not all the biographies declare Christopher Smart to be a freemason. Chris Mounsey says in the notes of his book "Christopher Smart: clown of God" that "Since neither Smart's name nor his pseudonyms appear in the records of the Freemasons, it is highly unlikely he was ever one of their number. See, however, Marie Roberts, 'British Poets and Secret Societies' (Beckenham: Croom Helm, 1986) for an account of Smart's work which accepts his association with the Freemasons." I think something to this effect should be written in the lede, actually. This "went after"ing of articles that you worked on at Wikipedia is what is really disconcerting. It sounds like a witch-hunt to find fault with your work and exactly what I figured... the intensity of arguments continues to haunt you afterward. I guess you can do that at Wikipedia since there are no departments to keep order. Varks Spira (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Mounsey was proven wrong by the London Freemason Library which stated that the records were not complete nor could a lack of a name verify that a person was not a member. I have documents from them and from a Pheonix Lodge on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be an excellent addition to the article. Is it possible to read these document somewhere online? These are official statements by freemason associations? They are not sure themselves, I guess, as to whether or not Smart was one of their own? Of course, a freemason institution is biased somewhat, but their opinion is very valuable. I'm sure they are more than okay with having Christopher Smart considered a freemason. Good for their history. Are there other, more recent, sources on the matter? I started a section on the talk page of the Christopher Smart article to deal with this. Varks Spira (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have them in my email somewhere. They were used as evidence when the banning happened. Anyway, the issue was dealt with over a year ago. It wasn't a major point of interest in his life, so it wouldn't really be great to rehash it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I like verifying facts. Could I possibly view the evidence somehow? Varks Spira (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe in November when I have more time to dig for it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. This sub-subject is not really any sort of interest of mine, but it did grasp me for a few hours there. I guess all these arguments can be time consuming and in the end they take you away from the main subject. Didn't mean to bring back any ghosts. I was just trying to comprehend some of the debates that are ongoing around here. Cheers, Varks Spira (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Leigh Hunt

Certainly; had rather a long day (my significant other and some aussie guy nobody has ever heard of came up to uni for the day. I'll get right on the ledes in about thirty seconds. Ironholds (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEAT

Hello Ottava,

By this comment I can only assume that you are continuing your accusation of meatpuppetry. On previous occasions, I've asked you to stop making this accusation, or start an RfC or request for arbitration. You included me in a request for arbitration that was declined; are you going to start an RfC? Or stop making such comments? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, why are you still referring to Folantin as female? I thought this issue had been fixed. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The accusation already had diffs provided at ArbCom. Therefore, I can make the accusation all you want. And the ArbCom was not "declined". It was procedurally closed without prejudice. And "her" was referring to the Persian Empire, which is clear from the context. Now, you can stop harassing me. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "harassing" you, Ottava, I'm asking you to please stop accusing me of meatpuppetry. Apparently, you don't want to stop.

By the way, if, in this post, "her" is supposed to refer to the Persian Empire, you might want to go back and edit the post, because that is not what it says. "her edit war" != "the Persian Empire's edit war". --Akhilleus (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should pay attention and see that I already did. However, seeing as how you responded to me at 14:20, it is likely that you did see it and felt like making comments about it -anyway-. And Akhilleus, meat puppetry, responding for others,a nd going to multiple pages is the very definition of WP:HARASS. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't seen that you fixed it. That's good! --Akhilleus (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work" And ArbCom has already ruled that when there is meatpuppetry, the individual actions apply to the whole, so even if you weren't on some of the discussions, you are still treated as if you were at all of them. Furthermore, WP:CONSENSUS makes it clear that your voice, dbachmann's voice, and Folantin's are considered as one regardless of what you may think, so your actions can't work to your benefit. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a very odd perspective, but thank you for sharing it. I take it you don't feel it's necessary to start an RfC or file another request for arbitration, and you're just going to keep on saying this sort of thing on talk pages and noticeboards? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Who said I wasn't going to file another RfAr? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was asking. Do you intend to do so soon? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If you suddenly decide to stop speaking for others in direct violation of WP:CONSENSUS and instead deal with articles appropriately, along with others doing the same, and people stop edit warring the Persian Empire page out of existence without clear consensus to determine it should be edited out of existence, and not follow me to other pages and do the same disruption as appeared with the Oscar Wilde dispute, then no. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I've done none of those things, I am unsure how to interpret your statement. Let's just say I don't plan to change my behavior, because I don't think I'm violating any policies or doing anything wrong. Do you then plan to file a request for arbitration or other WP:DR soon? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? Did you not edit the Persian Empire page to remove something without consensus? Did you not respond on the Talk page of Persian Empire? How about to the Oscar Wilde conflict? There are previous ones too. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, I understand that you have problems with my editing. You don't need to elaborate on that point, because I don't think we're going to agree about it. I'm just curious whether you plan to pursue this in any official way, or if you just want to grouse about it on talk pages. WP:SPI comes to mind as one place you could pursue it; WP:RFC/U is another, and I bet there are other WP:DR steps that could be pursued. Or you could just stop talking about it! --Akhilleus (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"I understand that you have problems with my editing" And yet you continue with the aggression and problematic behaviors. You do realize that your posts meet the definition of taunting and are incivil, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"You do realize that your posts meet the definition of taunting and are incivil, right?" Once again, I'll disagree, but this conversation is clearly going nowhere, so I'll stop bothering you now. Cheers. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McDonald's Cycle Center/archive2

You were involved in the prior FAC that got timed out. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McDonald's Cycle Center/archive2 is now open.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I realize a full review is time consuming. Would you care to render an opinion on the topic regarding costs that is at issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me remind you that you previously felt that you owed me a support for getting your sourcing concerns addressed. This FAC2 is getting long in the tooth and could surely use some of that support now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

10 part Leigh Hunt DYK

On October 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Juvenilia, Hero and Leander, Bacchus and Ariadne, Literary Pocket-Book, The Calendar of Nature, The Feast of the Poets, The Descent of Liberty, The Nymphs, The Story of Rimini, and The Palace of Pleasure, which you created or substantially expanded.

SoWhy 03:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

One last try

I'm going to try one last time. I've reiterated again and again to you that I'm not some old enemy of yours, risen from the wikigrave in March 2009 to torment you. I'm just a person who's let myself get way too drawn in to this vortex. Yet, you are persisting with basically insinuating that I'm a liar. All I'm asking is that you formally retract these spurious accusations. That's all. I truly don't enjoy opening an ANI, and I don't want to do so here. All you have to do is say, "I retract the implications I've made about you" (or something substantially similar), and it'll be water under the bridge for me. I don't like feeling like there are people who don't trust my word, or who think I'm here for nefarious means. Let's put this behind us now. UA 20:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never said that you were an old enemy of mine nor do I have "enemies". I find it interesting that you would use such a phrase. Every day, you keep saying curiouser and curiouser things. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

::No, you just make really nasty insinuations, as you did in this last post. Can I take this to mean that you're not going to withdraw these insinuations? UA 23:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Unitanode, does it really matter? Surely we've all got better things to do than this. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Malleus here. It's an encyclopedia, you both write in different areas, you don't ever have to come in contact again. Time to move on and regain focus. Risker (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Vauxhall Gardens FP nom

Please comment on the edited version of this nom. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actor rebellion

Dunno why the author left out flu. From my quick search, seems that there are dozens of old (1800s) sources to back up flu, but not so much in newer publications. Maybe somebody with modern medical training decided that the symptoms did not match flu exactly. But that's just speculation. I just thought it was helpful to identify the disease, even if just "possibly/probably".

Agh, yes, Google can be annoying and unpredictable. But it is also an invaluable resource. Just wanted to make it was used to tie up the loose ends. Anyway, great job & I am very impressed with your work on Fielding. I saw you have a FAC on his play - good luck! Renata (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

FAC nom

Hello Ottava. I have recently nominated Makinti Napanangka at FAC. You have a critical reviewing eye and comments at the review page would be welcomed. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Blake

I've added some info to America a Prophecy, and a complete copy of The Song of Los is now up on commons. This is really all I can do tonight, but I might be able to do some more tomorrow. Go ahead and add me to the nom if you like, I'll get around to these pages sooner or later. Lithoderm 23:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I won't have time to get to these soon enough. Good luck on you exams; I'm glad that you can integrate your interests here with your academic interests.... Lithoderm 17:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There will be another 9 part set afterward that you should be able to fit into your schedule. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you take a look?

Hey Ottava, if you're not too busy, could you take a look at this FAC? There appear to be some disputed objections, and I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter, as I know you've been known to be critical of shorter nominations. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

To you and to the others - I wont be able to take a serious look at anything until Sunday. Thursday, Friday, and Saturday will be taken with exams I need to pass for my doctorate. So, yeah. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with your exams. They are certainly more important than Wikipedia! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You'd think that, but thankfully I was able to cater Wiki to my exam prep. I have to finish the Blake stuff so I can have a stronger grasp of that crazy bugger. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Blake has always been my favorite poet, I am just not suited to writing about literature, so I've left it to others. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem; good luck! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Literary Barnstar
		Awarded to Ottava Rima for their excellent contribution to the coverage of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, specifically the conversation poems. Such Toil is Commendatory. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

A quick question, if you don't mind Ottava.

I've noticed that some articles on novels include a Characters section, whereas others don't. Is there some rule of thumb, or is it just down to personal preference? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

PS. Good luck with the exams. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can find good reference books that discuss the characters then I would add a character section. If not, then don't. A plot should be able to cover most of the basic stuff, and a character section would only be worth while if it offers some kind of literary theory/critical based view. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That makes sense. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI for Rjanag

User Draeco has reported admin Rjanag at the ANI here based on what he believes was grossly uncivil behavior during the Epeefleche/Shells affair. You should know that in my comments I cited some of your comments with regard to the closing admin in the instant matter: Backslash Forwardslash. Regards.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for 9 part Blake hook

On October 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Los (Blake), The Book of Urizen, The Book of Los, The Book of Ahania, Orc (Blake), Continental prophecies, America a Prophecy, Europe a Prophecy, and The Song of Los, which you created or substantially expanded.

Thanks! Did you know its one week to Halloween, will you be there? Victuallers (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

200 dyk

		The 200 DYK Medal
		Awarded to Ottava Rima, as a "bicentennial" recognition of sustained high-quality content creation. Numerous Wikiprojects – not to mention citizens of the earth – benefit from your interesting contributions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I came so close to beating you to the mark. Foiled! :D Thanks, by the way. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Race you to 300 then :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Casliber, I almost beat you to 200 and you had a long head start. I'm about to pass you, and by the end of this time next year I should be over 500. You might as well give up now. :P If not, I shall taunt you a second time. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That's quite a lot. Congratulations! ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit request

First off wow, congrats on the 200 DYK medal. I'm still working on 25. :) But the actual reason I'm here is a copy edit request for 30 Rock (season 3). I worked up this article to save the Seasons of 30 Rock featured topic, and it has been at FLC for quite a while. Two voters are considering/weakly supporting the article, but numerous problems with copy-editing issues arose during the FLC and they requested a proper review by some third party. I can't think of anyone better than you, if you have the time. Thanks either way! Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll have time tomorrow. I have a list of articles to go through and I will add it onto my list. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks so much! Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for inability to abide by WP:CIVIL as per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&diff=prev&oldid=322273753. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I just read through that diff and was unable to locate the personal attack; can you please specify where it is, SarekOfVulcan? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Nor was I. Could it possibly have been the word bastardization? In the context of linguistics (which was how he was using it), this is a polite term. Durova³⁴⁵ 04:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph before lists 16 uncivil comments, and his response was "Those comments are not incivil and it would take a complete rewrite of WP:CIVIL...to make a claim to the contrary.." He showed no indication that he thought even _one_ of those comments might have been a bit over the top. (And yes, I know what "bastardization" means. And "niggardly", for that matter...)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Didn't mean to condescend. It's just hard to parse incivility from that particular diff. Durova³⁴⁵ 04:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So, you blocked someone for disagreeing with your or discussing their interpretation of CIVIL, even though there was no violation of civil? I really don't understand that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it has more to do with the "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude in trying to work with the Byron article over the past day. Ottava hasn't been stellar in handling the situation. I have no opinion on the block, but I can see the reason behind it. Keegan (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And bear in mind that I agree with Ottava that Byron and Lord Byron should only be redirects. This is not an attempt to win a content argument.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think "This isn't some children's game so your actions are inappropriate" is civil, then more power to you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see those words in the diff provided; perhaps it's my eyesight, which is often an issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

They aren't. They're in the paragraph immediately before that, pasted from an earlier edit of Ottava's. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well that's a more clear answer to my original query, since I could see no lack of civility in the diff you provided. At any rate, I'd guess we'd all best take care not to disagree with interpretations of policy in discussions, lest we be blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, if you go around saying "Do you even do anything around here worth while" is perfectly civil, odds are indeed that you will be blocked after a while. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had my disagreements with Ottava, but I don't see an instance here that warrants a block. Not one. I urge you to rescind the block, Sarek. --Moni3 (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with Moni3. There is absolutely nothing uncivil in telling someone that their actions are inappropriate. The injustice here is further compounded by the block review being carried out by the undisputed King of Civility Blocks. Ludicrous. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, please remove the Chillum reference from your above statement. You know I do not like characterizations of other users like that. Content, not people. I would strike it, but I have stated before that I am done regarding your talk page and your comments. So I will just ask you to remove the line. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek, as an involved user, has no ability to make such a block. He has shown that he does not understand what WP:CIVIL means nor what WP:AGF means. If Sarek does not rescind the block and apologize, this is a really strong case for ArbCom. Sarek has a history of this and it would probably be best that he is not allowed such access again, especially since blocks are preventative and I was clearly asleep. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless you were planning to sleep for a week, "preventative" clearly applies. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek, the very fact that you are involved and think that you are some how able to make a block or have some kind of judgment in the matter is almost scary. I would request that you voluntarily relinquish your ops because you have done a lot to verify an ArbCom case and that you do not deserve them. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup

Hi Ottava. However it is that this block transpired is one matter (although it seems your position is meritorious about the article name and the reliability of the Library of Congress), but in the spirit of good sportsmanship let's not let it get in the way of the last days of the Cup. The grapevine has been saying you have about two dozen good articles in the pipeline. Not all of them have been nominated for GAC yet. If you need any nominations put up, or points recorded, or simple copyedits per reviewer notes, please post the request here at your user talk during your block. If no one objects I'll be glad to relay the uncontroversial wikignoming, just as long as it's completely unrelated to whatever sticky situation caused the block. May the best editor win, Durova³⁴⁵ 04:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ottava Rima (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Admin is an involved user in the discussion. Comment is not a personal attack nor have I made any statements about personality. Admin has made claims about my -psychology- and has been incivil to me and personally attacked me during the matter.

Decline reason:

I see a whole page of you being accusatory and failing to assume good faith. I see plenty of opportunity for you to stop and plenty of people pointing out the problem to you. I also see you denying that there is a problem all through it and indeed now. The fact that you don't recognize the problem demonstrates the preventative need for this block. Chillum 14:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I made claims about your psychology? Guess that shows how seriously this particular request should be taken. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Claiming that I am not calm when I state that I am calm is a breach of AGF and NPA. You have no right to claim what -my- emotional state is, nor do you have the right to pursue it at a WQA. If I state how I feel, you cannot claim otherwise. You are not here. You cannot claim to know me. You violated multiple policies, and blocked me for what was clearly within policy. Your tendentious responses in there and your personal attacks deserve to be blocked over, and yet you, involved, block me. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, when did I say you weren't calm? Diff, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And a diff for the personal attack would be nice as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Also Ottava regarding your claims that Sarek is too involved to make this block. Admins are not considered to be 'involved' with a given user if the only interaction has been to warn that user against further actions which are against policy, community norms, or requests by users regarding their own userspace. Calm discussion and explanation of the warning likewise does not cause an administrator to become 'involved' or have a conflict of interest with regards to future blocking actions taken against the warned user.

Based on the above criteria for involvement I don't see how Sarek is involved in such a manner as to preclude himself. Chillum 14:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. Need more posts where he was involved with the matter along with opining over the dispute? He was defending a side and saying that Elen was correct. You cannot take the neutral position while taking one side. Furthermore, Chillum, your claims above were false. I never crossed AGF. I even quoted on the page where you can make accusations as long as you provide -evidence-. It is only those that lack evidence which are inappropriate. Furthermore, not once did I say anything about their -person- or their -motivations-. They could be disrupting because they think it is the best thing to do. Who knows! See below. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And Chillum, an admin does not have the right to block someone in a comment that was directed to them and in a discussion with them. Furthermore, the comment had -no- attacks. There is no way to claim it was incivil or anything else. And a week long block after I go to bed so there would be no chance to even request an unblock? That only verifies the problem with the action. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• AGF - "f you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, then please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence so that people can understand the basis for the concerns. Although bad conduct may be apparently due to bad faith, it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives" "Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed, and exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others if a perceived assumption of bad faith was not clear-cut."

Someone please link where I have ever mentioned motives. Until you do, all claims of my bad faith are a violation of WP:AGF. That includes Sarek, Chillum, and everyone else. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, Ottava? In the link currently labeled [5] above, I was agreeing with you, not Elen. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for verifying that you are involved. Agreeing or disagreeing, still a sign that you were not neutral nor had the capacity to act neutral. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And I'm still waiting for diffs showing a personal attack or stating that you're not calm. Please supply them or strike the comments.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your personal attacks - claims I personalized the debate, which would be claiming I violated WP:NPA. There are no diffs provided nor can you say that I actually involved any -person- except in following WP:NPA's guide on commenting on behavior. Therefore, your statement violates WP:NPA. More of the same. Reinforcing a claim about my psychology. Words do not have feelings or states, only individuals do. A characterization in such a manner would be directly about my psychology. This was pointed out and asked to stop. You did not strike the comment. None of those violates WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, as they all had -evidence- reinforcing claims that there was misbehavior, which is 100% acceptable. Otherwise, anyone ever posting at WQA, ANI, Rfar, etc, would be immediately blocked. Here you claim that saying someone should be "calm" is not personalized or psychological. It deals 100% with a state of being that cannot be known through text. Such statements are direct violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. WQA is not for such statements. And, such statements would make it seem like you violated the Cool Down Block prohibition. So, you violated three policies, blocked when involved, and blocked against how blocks are to be used. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Then there is a lovely violation of WP:HARASS here - [27] and [28]. The more I look, the more I realized that Sarek violated just about every behavioral policy I can think of except edit warring. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

According to m-w.com, "furious" also means "intense", as in "the furious growth of tropical vegetation". Hence, referring to "furious...attacks", as Elen did, is not a claim about your psychology, and pointing to the dictionary is not reinforcing it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would mean that you are labeling me as being intense. There is no applicable definitions except to say that my words represented that I was closely connected to the action, which would be "intense". The only other use of "intense" would be if I was able to post a lot of posts in a short period of time, which clearly did not happen. Regardless, the comment was -clearly- inappropriate and not acceptable on WQA, and you verified it. When I critique both yours and Elen's behavior at WQA, you are involved, and you cannot block me for critiquing you. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That's good, because I didn't.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You said that her comments were correct. I quoted that above. When I chastise someone for violating what WQA is for, and then you start defending their behavior, and then block me when I critique your own, you really have crossed the line. That is -not- what WQA is for. I have already pointed out how claims about AGF were severely misused and violated the policy. I have already pointed out how my statements were not attacks in any regard, and you have twisted critiques of behavior that have evidence behind them to be representative of emotional states and pushed WQA beyond what it is intended for. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that her comments were correct. I said that characterizing your attacks as "furious", meaning intense, was fair. That's a comment on your edits, not on you, no matter how you try to twist it to make it come out that way. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"it seems like a fair characterization. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)" 1. The definition above makes it clear that it cannot be regarding words but a personal's state of mind. 2. You reinforced her statements even after it was pointed out that it carries the implication of a mental analysis. 3. Saying that there is another definition right or wrong does not take away from the dominant implication. Regardless if what you thought was right or not (which was proven above as wrong), it was inappropriate to have such characterizations at WQA. It is further inappropriate for you to say they were "fair". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And Sarek, where is the furious "content". Please link to my content that meets the definition of furious. Unless you do, it is further evidence that you were involved and in the wrong. Furthermore, you have failed to provide any actual evidence of a violation. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|Chillum's claim is that a block is needed because of my lack of AGF. I have proven through quotes that I have met all conditions for AGF (discussing bad behavior while using evidence) and there is no way to claim I violated AGF, nor is it justification to uphold a weeklong block by a user that has been proven above to be involved, especially when his approach to WQA was directly brought into discussion. I am putting up this unblock template again because Chillum has not returned to discussion}}

• For the reviewing admin: This mess began as a dispute over a page name, in this discussion about moving a page, which resulted in this Wikiquette alert. The block is based on claims of uncivil behavior in both of these discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There is already a link in the block. Consensus was rather clear above that the claims were not incivil. Chillum's claims about AGF were directly in contradiction to our policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

For Sarek and Chillum

• Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith - "One being reminded to AGF who does not see how he or she was doing otherwise is likely to feel provoked, which will only escalate matters. Carbonite's Law tells us, "the more a given user invokes Assume good faith as a defense, the lower the probability that said user was acting in good faith." While the correctness of this statement can be disputed, it reflects the reality that constantly telling others to AGF is not likely to get the desired results. One who often feels the need to remind others to AGF would instead do well to look inward and consider that those others may not be the whole problem. In especially egregious situations, rather than directly citing AGF consider citing an applicable policy which references it, such as Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, or Wikipedia:Harassment; however, those principles can be hypocritically invoked as well, so think before reminding someone else of them."

• WP:AOBF - "Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually in bad faith and harassment if done repeatedly. The result is often accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle."

- Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)