Talk:Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima

Active discussions


I've not been involved with Ottava on meta, but en:wp & wv, and WR are another matter. I know he has made valuable content contributions, but he is also not able or willing to behave appropriately with many others. This is all well documented on many pages. He is not going to change so he is simply going to have to go. Jack Merridew 20:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack Merridew has a long history of bothering me, edit warring against me inappropriately, and even used a document I transcribed that was 400k to justify him gaining adminship on Wikisource without any permission from me or notifying me that he was using my work to do such a thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
"this is an absurd claim Ottava"; v:User talk:Ottava Rima#Greetings and Salutations. More lies; I have the emails from you; you said 'thanks', then. Go Away, Ottava. Jack Merridew 00:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I never said thanks for you taking credit for -my- work to get an adminship. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


Hey, Ottava. Reference your statement: "You opposed the policy and fought about it for days over IRC." would you mind posting said logs here, on-wiki for everyone to view. I believe FT2 has already stated he is fine with you doing so. This might help clear things up on both sides. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 18:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

More than fine. Ottava knows that I've stated the "normal community view" and little more. The rest's drama and exaggeration. That's why I'm happy if he produces any alleged logs (with full context), why I've asked him to, and probably why he isn't doing so.
One common response to criticism is to try and attack the person criticizing, and turn it into a mere personal dispute, by claiming there is "history" or creating "history". But in this case it isn't. There's no "history". Ottava has strong views and routinely disagrees with 1/ most people who see Wikimedia as "open", 2/ most users who state this is the communal norm in wiki or irc discussions, 3/ most people who criticize him. There's no other "history". The rest is an attempt at "ad hominem" smearing, which as the RFC diffs show, Ottava has tried with many people. I imagine most users can see past it. The issue remains that Ottava needs to hear this isn't acceptable. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
FT2, you have a history of making claims that people have said embarrass Wikipedia and are outright lies. I posted links to that. You have no right to try and cast stones. -I- was never booted from ArbCom for gross inappropriate behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

IRC does not allow posting of logs in public nor are all of the people involved in the matter releasing their statements. As a note (since you do keep IRC logs), the dates and times correspond to the Commons dispute over Tyciol and many of FT2's claims in defense of editors who "do nothing wrong". He has made the same statements on the content page and has refused to state that he does believe that users like Tyciol deserve to be banned now. The matter is about child protection as well as the discussion on pornography and other matters. It boils down to an issue if he will be promoting what is best for the safety of our tens of thousands of child editors. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Then you can email them off-wiki where copyright isn't an issue, just like you claim you emailed them to others. Thank you. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Tiptoety should have access to IRC logs as he has provided them to me before, and the date and time should allow him to easily pin point the discussion. If Tiptoety wants to catch me on IRC to discuss particulars, then that is fine. However, as I pointed out above you stated on the "article" part of this page exactly what I accused you of saying in IRC, so it is redundant now. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're considering publishing channel logs, think it through. The freenode network is an interactive environment. Even on public channels, most users don't weigh their comments with the idea that they'll be enshrined in perpetuity. For that reason, few participants publish logs.

If you're publishing logs on an ongoing basis, your channel topic should reflect that fact. Be sure to provide a way for users to make comments without logging, and get permission from the channel owners before you start. If you're thinking of "anonymizing" your logs (removing information that identifies the specific users), be aware that it's difficult to do it well—replies and general context often provide identifying information which is hard to filter.

If you just want to publish a single conversation, be careful to get permission from each participant. Provide as much context as you can. Avoid the temptation to publish or distribute logs without permission in order to portray someone in a bad light. The reputation you save will most likely be your own.


Don't post public logs of any channels without prior permission from all persons quoted. This is a good rule of thumb, but some channels do not have this restriction - if in doubt, check.

Seems that as long as you have permission from the folks you quote, you're fine posting them on-wiki. If the issue is a conversation between you and FT2, and he's given you permission, you'd be fine quoting between the two of you. Comments not part of the conversation or indirectly material could be redacted from the transcript with minimal impact to the conversation.
Also, regarding the ad hominem above, as you've never been elected to ENWP ArbCom, it's rather unlikely that you could have been booted off of it later, don't you think? Get elected to that body and maintain position before using it again please. Kylu 19:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind seeing the logs either. FT2 has already given you permission to post his statements, so just take out anything that's not you or him talking. Those are clearly the important points in the discussion anyway, we don't need whatever other side discussion was going on at that point. And as to being kicked off things for inappropriate behavior, I believe you were kicked off the English Wikipedia entirely for inappropriate behavior. Mr. Pott, meet Mr. Kettle, I'm sure the two of you will get along well. Seraphimblade 22:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Ottava told me he doesn't think the links I provided give as much leeway on posting logs as I think they do. I'd like to counter with BASH and IRC office hours to start with. I know that I've been quoted on bash and am not one of the people who have signed IRC/Quotes/Permission (not that I'm complaining, but I don't want to give any sort of blanket permission either.) If FT2 is willing to state here, clearly, that he doesn't mind you quoting him, then you can go ahead, right?
Alternatively, you could simply provide a date and time from your own logs and FT2 could post the relevant logs with only your and his comments not redacted, you verify that the relevant log entries are complete otherwise, and then he's "on the line" for the sin of posting logs from IRC instead of you. Yet another alternative, if the two of you can find a neutral third party willing to do this, they could post the logs as needed and the two of you sign off that they're truthful and as complete as mentioned. With these alternatives, you can simply state the date and time range of the log entries, channel, and then everyone else does all the work and you're not liable for posting the text.
Alternatively, you could rescind your comments regarding IRC events if you'd like, though going to all the trouble of mentioning these events and then declining to allow them to be posted by others might reflect negatively in the eyes of users here. Kylu 01:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
If Ottava or FT2 will email me the logs, and Ottava is also willing to clearly state here that he permits his comments from them to be posted, I'm willing to do the redaction work and take responsibility for posting them. Ottava and FT2 can then check to ensure that their comments were posted without alteration. If both parties whose comments are being posted clearly consent, it'd be awfully hard to claim anyone did something wrong. Seraphimblade 02:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Confirming full consent, provided full context is given by Ottava (to prevent "out of context" or misleading) and enough information to check independently (ie, at a minimum the date/s and sample lines to confirm which snip is meant). Ottava has made claims of improper arguing about Tyciol and "arguing against policy for days" on some other matter, and those two should suffice. This is a bit of a distraction - the issue here is Ottava's lack of collaboration and invention of claims. But for that reason alone - to clear up yet another exaggeration or distortion of Ottava's - this is something I'm okay with asking for.
Irc logs related to Ottava's claims have been requested by both myself [1] and others [2] and I had already given clear approval [3]. Ottava's response was to evade this request to provide logs or details [4] and claim that copyright prevented this [5]. I followed up by suggesting Ottava email them privately [6] as he claimed to have done so to others – so far Ottava has failed to do so.
As Ottava has been asked some 6 or 7 times now to show any full irc logs he has a gripe about and still hasn't done so (although claiming he's sent them to many others), as I log my own chats and cannot find statements meeting his descriptions, and as other claims Ottava makes about "what someone said" were described as lies or distortions by those he quotes [7], I suspect Ottava has some good reasons not to provide dates, quotes and full context. In brief it's a simple attempt to deflect evidenced concerns by ad hominem, smearing, or recasting as a personal dispute, the same behavior other users note he attempted with others. Not inclined to rise to it. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
FT2, you have your own logs but I don't care. If you didn't keep records of what you said, its your fault. But you even argued on the article side that you believed that criminals have the right to edit. So, why do you want to see private logs of something you stated publicly? Odd, unless you were trying to play games. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Kylu, not everyong signed Bash. After Tyciol was banned, there was a major discussion about it in #wikipedia-en. FT2 and others argued that Tyciol shouldn't be banned. FT2 has yet to make any change to that (i.e. say that Tyciol should be, in his opinion, banned). He was asked multiple times so far. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
"Alternatively, you could simply provide a date and time from your own logs and FT2 could post the relevant logs with only your and his comments not redacted" Would make it unreadable. There were many people involved in the discussion. Date - the Tyciol matter happened between July 5-July 7th, and this was stated before. FT2's claims that I didn't provide dates is rather absurd. He was well aware that this was all referring to his comments around the dust up on Commons. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Ottava, this is the problem. I don't know what FT2's position is on Tyciol, and I don't care. The problem here is, you seem to be saying that he has no right to an opinion unless it happens to be your opinion. If FT2 acts against consensus, then his behavior is inappropriate. But to simply disagree with consensus, and say "I think we got this one wrong", is entirely everyone's right. Your attitude, that to simply differ in opinion from you is disruptive behavior, is what's unacceptable. Neither FT2 nor anyone else is required to change their opinion upon demand. We're required to act in accordance with consensus, or at least not act in a way that's clearly against it. We're not required to like or agree with it. Seraphimblade 16:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
We ban pedophiles. It doesn't matter if there is an "opinion or not". You have no right to disrupt a community discussion to push a fringe view. There is no first amendment at the WMF. There is no right to spout off that criminals have any "rights" to use these services. All that I did was point out that he had a fringe view. I didn't block FT2, remove his comments, or the rest, so your statements don't even apply. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
That's July 2010? FT2 (Talk | email) 21:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacksEdit

Ottava, criticisms of those who have raised concerns about your conduct (regardless of what those criticisms are) do not make any difference to the concerns themselves. Those kinds of attacks and inability to listen to others, are half the reason this RFC was raised. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The person saying the concerns always matters. History is important. Only impartial subjects can have their words seen in an impartial light. This is common knowledge and standard. It is also standard not to put people's names in subheadings or make them attacks, which you failed to do. You have done a lot of things so far that violate standard practice. Furthermore, RfC's always look into -all- parties and their conduct. That is common knowledge: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." Why is it that all of your comments are contradicting long held standards? Hell, the filing of the RfC wasn't even appropriate as you never once tried to "resolve" anything nor proved that there was any merit to it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


People want to see excerpts, so I will post some from channels but not the full logs. This will be scattered because there were 3 individuals I addressed. It is hard to find quotes without having others being involved (and making it unreadable when they speak). So, here is some of the abridged logs.

Here is the easiest to see, from TheDJ:

Session Start: Wed Jul 07 14:59:02 2010

  • [15:23] <thedj> i'm just worried about our first policy that explicitly excludes a group of people for what they are. I don't think we should adopt something like that without thoroughly discussing it like we discuss most policies.

This was referring to Tyciol/Pedophiles.


  • [15:07] <Ottava> There is no safe haven for Pedophiles
  • [15:08] <Ottava> and there is no safe haven for Pedophile advocates
  • [15:08] <Ottava> That will never change
  • [15:08] <thedj> good to know how you think about your fellow humans...
  • [15:09] <thedj> " Ottava> Pedophiles aren't humans. No one who wants to rape children is a human" statements like these were why you were banned btw. not because of kameraad pjotr.

Will post more after I format them to remove others. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Waiting. With full context (after removal of copyrighted third party comments), please. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ottava: your response and your edits to my postEdit

Ottava - as you well know, you need to post your response in your "response" section, thanks. I have moved it there for you.

If the title I have given a part of the evidence is unjustified, other users will say so - please do not change others posts just because you don't like the view stated. You will notice that despite you presenting fairly obnoxious claims and attacks, I have not edited any of your posts to change them to a "more neutral wording". Probably if someone did you would be aggrieved about it and see it as an attempt to cover up.

Sauce for the goose... sauce for the gander. Do not edit my words unless they actually breach a Meta policy in a way that consensus (and not just you) would agree they should be edited. Thank you. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"Need to post" No I don't. There are no rules for that. The only RfC rules is that everyone posting is up for grabs, a rule that -you- ignored. Furthermore, you keep putting in bias headings that go against standard practice. Stop speaking about what we do when you are violating all of our standard practices. Any heading that directly targets another user to push a view is not accepted practice. It never has been accepted practice. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
1. "Keep headings neutral", 2. "Do not be critical in headings", 3. "Never address other users in a heading", and 4. "Never use headings to attack other user". Your heading violates all four points. From w:Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
FT2, I've been on both sides of this one. I agree that names don't belong in headings and that they should be neutral. Otherwise, it makes them a little too prominent in the table of contents and sets up a target which might not be constructive. I like the policy that headings belong to the community not the poster. Ocaasi 03:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree, although with caveats. If it was inappropriate any other user would change it. For the same reason, nobody else has refactored Ottava's posts.
It's also an example of gaming: - the edit was justified by selective quote from a guideline on a different project (Meta is not enwiki), that covers different pages (talk page guideline not RFC), and by stating at length it demands certain changes in headers that he likes while showing complete indifference to, and ignoring, the big guideline section "behavior that is unacceptable" that forbids his behaviors others disapprove of. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Other unfounded claimsEdit

Ottava, you said of Ocaasi that "I asked many stewards and meta admin and all say it is suspicious [8].

Which users did you ask? How many is "many"? Why have none confirmed this on-wiki? Names of stewards who will confirm this claim, please. And would any stewards who did state such a view to Ottava please note it.

You also stated that

  • "the Tyciol matter happened between July 5-July 7th, and this was stated before. FT2's claims that I didn't provide dates is rather absurd" [9],
  • "FT2 and others argued that Tyciol shouldn't be banned" [10],
  • "You -still- defended Tyciol... You opposed the policy and fought about it for days over IRC" [11].

You did not actually provide dates prior to this to anyone in this discussion (diff where you did?) and upon checking my logs for those dates and beyond I find the following.

Sadly not surprising the answer is "nothing", because the dates you claim were the Wikipedia dramaout which I had signed up to (5 - 9 July) and apart from BLP policy work activity I was almost entirely sticking to article edits on wiki and content-related matters on irc. Perhaps check evidence before making claims?

Total of irc activity 4 - 8 July
  • #wikipedia-en - 4th July: said nothing, 5th said nothing, 6th said nothing, 7th said nothing, 8th two dialogs: helped a user who wanted to know about obligations as a reuser, helped a user who had uploaded a corporate image that was now available on Commons and needed deletion locally.
  • #wikipedia-en-admins - 4th July said nothing, 5th said nothing, 6th three dialogs: discussion on appropriate warnings before blocks, discussion of the meaning of the word "conservative", helped an admin seeking review whether he was likely to be "involved" in a user's case and should leave an action to some other admin, 7th noted I had declined an attempt at "forum shopping" by a user, 8th discussed "dramaout" week 5 - 9 July.
  • Private chat with you - none (none for at least a week either side).
  • Discussion of Tyciol - I can't find any discussion I was party to during the days you claim. Logs look complete. Currently appears to be questionable if any took place.

Since you claimed I was involved in the Tyciol discussion and that the discussion was 5 - 7 July, this looks bad. If there is any genuine evidence then it would also be best to open it for review as others have also suggested. I think you need to email your actual alleged log texts, otherwise it seems to look like another fabrication or distortion.

FT2 (Talk | email) 23:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It is strange how you say I made unfounded claims yet you spout off things that are blatanly false above. This section mentions the Tyciol matter]. As for the "date" of the conversation, I only said that the Tyciol discussion started between those dates. The matter filled IRC until well after July 10. I gave the -start- dates with it being ramped up on July 6th. You cannot make inappropriate claims about what others say and try to claim your inappropriate claims somehow make the other person's statements inappropriately. You have still failed to answer basic questions posted here. Until you answer these questions and put your views out there, you have no grounds to say anyone is misrepresenting you. Unless you are stating that you now think all pedophiles should be immediately banned, which you have failed to do though asked multiple times, you cannot say anything about anyone saying you don't want them to be banned. You were kicked off ArbCom for refusal to answer simple questions and you still refuse to answer simple questions. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

When you can produce a log or diff showing that your claims related to Tyciol are truthful, then you'll have a reason to ask for any explanation. But they aren't. You said was that "the Tyciol matter happened between July 5-July 7th" [12] and that "this was stated before". You know how to do diffs. I suggest you look for one (the section you linked to as "proof" doesn't show any dates being stated at all [13]). Despite this I have further checked my logs for 9 - 14 July as well, which was a fine waste of time, there's still nothing matching your claims. This is not surprising by now.
Update: irc activity 9 - 14 July
  • #wikipedia-en - 9th July: said nothing, 10th said nothing, 11th said nothing, 12th helped a user validate a template, 13th said nothing, 14th said nothing
  • #wikipedia-en-admins - 9th July: said nothing, 10th said nothing, 11th said nothing, 12th two dialogs: discussion of link blacklist query; helping another admin related to an issue where I had previously acted on-wiki, 13th two dialogs: a coding/bugzilla matter and a brief discussion of Agatha Christie books and spoilers, 14th said nothing
  • Private chat with you - none (none for at least a week either side).
  • Discussion of Tyciol - I can't find any discussion I was party to during the days you claim. Logs look complete. Still appears to be questionable if any took place.
So in brief, I think you have a problem Ottava. The logs and evidence don't seem to support your claims:
  • You appear to have lied about my being party to any discussion of Tyciol whether "happening between" or "starting from" 5 - 7 July.
  • You appear to have lied about my "arguing" for days on the case.
  • You changed your story when this was pointed out (a very clear "happened between" got changed to "started from").
  • You appear to have invented claims and claimed specific proof exists against users which did not (or in some cases was very distorted) to support your position.
  • You were untruthful to the community about having already given dates for checking (in fact you had tried hard to avoid giving dates despite being asked several times) and the dates you did eventually give happened to clash with the "dramaout" when many users, myself included [14], were avoiding almost all non-content work and discussion.
  • You appear to have lied in claiming "many stewards" supported you, to back your claim against Ocaasi.
If you have any actual diffs or actual irc logs, or the names of the "many stewards" to show you were honest on these points, now would be a good time to post it. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Questions still not answered. You claim I am a liar over and over without proof and still refuse to answer basic questions. It is odd that you have never denied it yet still go on and on. Why is that? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that (after considerable factual checking) that I do.
As do others and other diff evidence suggesting the same
(diffs collapsed)
  • Mardetanha has called you an outright liar here. [15]
  • You claimed that logs exist which so far don't seem to exist. discussion of this claim
  • You have claimed people got sent logs and offered to send them to anyone by email (deleted) but so far not one of "many" Wikimedians has confirmed this (despite asking), and you have declined to show them to users here who asked to review them at this RFC (Tiptoety Kylu Seraphimblade) or privately by email [16].
  • You claim "many stewards" support against Ocaasi but so far not one has confirmed this (asked stewards 3 times now) and you haven't been able or willing to name the "many" who did. [17]
  • You claimed to have stated a date of an incident earlier but a check shows you did not. [18]
  • You changed your story (from "happened between" to "started between") when logs weren't found. [19][20].
  • You accused a user of 3600 edits of having "no history or background" and "just appear[ing] for this debate" , and a user trusted with sysophood on 2 wikis and 44,000 edits (including edits on wikis that look at non-atutomated contributions) as doing "nothing more than push a few scripts", [21][22][23]
  • You continued to claim a steward abused his access (selectively quoting an irrelevant part of oversight policy to make the claim) even though you knew multiple local oversighters had already confirmed to you that the action was correct. [24] (claims made after this post: [25][26])
As for your questions, if you can show evidence (diffs or logs) of conduct that is in breach of some community norm or any improper action in a wiki matter, then that would be relevant to this RFC. It would also be sensible to produce your evidence of repeatedly "arguing for days" on the Tyciol matter on or around 5 - 7 July on irc as you claim to be able – which is also apparently a fictional claim. So far you haven't shown logs, and none appear to exist. That is why I haven't responded to your off-topic quiz, and why Pathoschild also stated they were a distraction from your own conduct. I have commented on this in the next section.
FT2 (Talk | email) 22:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A general statementEdit

This RfC was started by FT2 over being "misrepresented" according to him. He was asked three days ago this set of questions. If FT2 is honestly concerned about how people address his views on the matter, then he should provide clear answers. Any past statements, views, or representations would be null and void once he answers. I have already stated that I would accept any such answers as his view and address his view as these answers in the future. He has refused to answer. So, I will not respond any further anywhere to him until he answers these questions. But, if he does not answer them by October 23rd, then it will be an implicit "yes" to questions 1-5 and a "no" to questions 6-7. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A quick read shows that this RFC was started due to unfounded accusations made against a wide range of users and a steward, disruption, and personal attacks, in the course of wiki discussion. The community was asked to review it thoughtfully and advise you "unambiguously" on expected standards, nothing more, as you would not accept such advice from any individual alone.
Your response was to try and personalize it by off-topic unfounded claims. When you can find diffs or a formal log extract (which you have had permission to post twice now and still don't seem to be able to find) that show that I have acted in any breach at all of wiki standards, or in any way acted improperly in a wiki matter – which I doubt – then we can discuss it. So far you haven't shown this, which is why Pathos has stated your questions are irrelevant and are used to evade the question of your behavior.
FT2 (Talk | email) 22:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It can only be "unfounded" if you are willing to deny it. When asked straight up, you refused to make any denial. You still refuse to answer questions.Why is it? Why are you afraid to answer questions? Is it because you really do believe what I say you believe? Do you feel ashamed because you know you can't say you don't believe it but know that it is wrong for you to believe it? It is the only possible answer. The rest is all purely disruption by you trying to ignore the root of the matter. If you honestly didn't support the rights of pedophiles to edit, then you would have said so in response to the question. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Update; closureEdit

Ottava Rima has been blocked indefinitely for personal attacks on 21:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC); an unblock request has been (implicitly) rejected on 23:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC) (considering also canvassing on Stewards/confirm/2011/M7 and a small change/addition to the block); there's currently a new unblock request with some discussion. So, looks like MZMcBride proposal has been implemented, to say so: perhaps someone willing to read and review this long discussion may close the RfC, or we could just archive it without a specific conclusion, as obsolete/outdated? --Nemo 10:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The unblock request is still open and has considerable support, thanks; see also here where the block by WizardOfOz is critisized by many and will cost them their stewardship. A proposal has been made that is currently being considered by Herbythyme. There is no evidence of canvassing, rather there are witness statements to the contrary. Nonetheless, this RfC should be closed, as it is going nowhere and most of the stuff is ancient. Guido den Broeder 13:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Ehm, sorry? Where did you find considerable support or criticisms related to the block? I'm not able to find anything from your link...--Nick1915 - all you want 15:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
For info - I ceased considering any proposals about Rima due to his general rudeness. I am more than happy to help folk when i can but when they are less than pleasant I can easily find plenty of other things to do. --Herby talk thyme 16:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Any long-term block or ban is better achieved as a neutral close to this RfC, which should be specifically referenced in the block, if that's the conclusion, so that it will be readily seen by any admin considering unblock. Ottava is attempting to make the issue into administrative bias. In a sense, he's right. He was so abrasive, attempting to bully WizardOfOz, that WOO finally had enough. Was this an error? Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes, someone has to be motivated enough to do the obvious. This then called serious. immediate attention to the issues, and others reviewed the block. WOO knew that he was sacrificing his stewardship, possibly, but felt that this was important. It's all irrelevant, really, for those who read this RfC and see what Ottava had been up to, long-term, but which escalated in a major way after he was desysopped on Wikiversity, as he sought payback.

Nemo, you stated on [27] that this was closed, but the unblock discussion is continuing, and you did not state a formal close here. If you are neutral, I recommend you do that, making a conclusion, and reblocking -- or annotating that block --, according to that conclusion. As the matter stands now, the block appears to be by one custodian, with one steward, whom Ottava is attacking, confirming. An action based on this RfC would avoid future conflict, providing a much deeper basis for action.

Alternatively, you could simply state the conclusion here on User talk:Ottava Rima. --Abd 17:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've closed the request for help from sysops (to move discussion here and because it was outdated), not this request for comment. --Nemo 23:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Close RfC?Edit

Can we just close this and move on? I don't see how having this years old discussion open is helpful. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, done. I had already proposed it 30+ months ago. --Nemo 17:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Return to "Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima" page.