User talk:Abd/Community Review/Ottava Rima

About the form here

This Community Review is designed to collect summary statements and evidence from users; ideally, there should be some sense that evidence is complete before general discussion begins. Users may refactor what they have placed in their own sections, while this is open. Two sections at the top of each specific "claim" section are reserved for the filer and the respondent. Then each user who wishes to do so may add a response section. Please do not thread response to users in their own named sections. A separate evidence section has not been provided for the respondent, but the respondent may create one and place it just under the filer's section. There is, with each "claiim," a threaded discussion section. The purpose of this format is to encourage clear and thoughtful statements by users, collection of evidence as needed, and then consideration of each claim, with some orderly process to determine if a claim is fair and true, to consider remedies, and to advise a closing custodian as to the sense of the community about the claim and remedy (each claim may be closed separately). Polls should not be begun until there is consensus to hold them, and the questions to be asked polls should be subject to general agreement, so it is requested that polls not be started until they have been discussed and approved on Talk.--Abd 01:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference between the Response section and the Evidence section?

The Response section is a summary of what you believe the evidence shows. Statements in the Response section should generally be backed up with Evidence in the Evidence section. If you believe you can present the evidence together with the response, the Response will be a more featured position, and you may do that. In general, though, Response is conclusions, not necessarily "facts." Evidence should be oriented more toward facts. --Abd 01:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Confusing

There are way too many subheadings and prompts for input, making this page very hard on the eyes and a bit daunting to jump into. The reviews for JWS and Jt were much easier to navigate and understand, though I'm not a huge fan of the templates. --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, something could be done about this. Thanks for the comment.

Frankly, I'd prefer to use subpages, and maybe I will. I developed this in specific response to the recent Jt template and what it did to the process. The point is to channel evidence and discussion into specific, narrow topics, at least at first! Too often, we end up with verdict first, trial afterwards as an attempt to prove the verdict, and everyone is highly suspicious of anyone trying to prove anything contentious. Except they forget to be suspicious of those they like, and prefer to suspect those they don't like.

Really, if I could control it -- and I suggested this to ArbComm, deaf ears -- an evidentiary phase would be required to precede the arguments, and proposed remedies should come only after the issues were clear.

Eventually, if we want Wikiversity to function like a real university or better, we will need to develop -- horrors! -- a kind of bureaucracy. I believe there are ways to do it efficiently and without excessive "red tape." A *good* bureaucracy makes process easier, not more difficult. But one issue at a time! --Abd 16:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Subpages would be worse :S. KISS.

We're a long way from needing a bureaucracy. A plain-English page that people can comment on would be far more producive for a community this size.

The problem boils down to that he's simply abusive and bossy, which creates a toxic environment. The components are how he treats Wikipedian "immigrants", other custodians that happen to disagree with him, and a general tone of "my way or the highway". --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Links

I'm opening this Community Review of Ottava Rima's behavior since returning to a more active role on Wikiversity early this year after he was banned from Wikipedia. While he has done a great deal of maintenance work, he has also been habitually dismissive, sarcastic, and dictatorial in cases where collegiality, politeness, and consensus-aimed discourse were called for.

After hearing back from some of Wikiversity's early adopters in regards to his behaviors during a policy discussion I asked them to weigh in on, I feel that it is important to address the issue.

The main issue here has primarily to do with the civility policy, however there also are serious issues regarding his use of custodial tools in a manner that is not as careful as I think most of the community would desire. --SB_Johnny ^talk 21:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriately confrontational with inactive custodians who responded on the activity RfC

During the "RfC" on inactive sysops, Ottava made no effort to contact any of them before starting the discussion.

• The discussion was framed as a policy vote which was to close on November 22.
• Ottava implied that sending an email was unnecessary here. See also here (note that we don't actually have a canvassing policy).
• Inactive custodians were sent an email on the 20th, many of whom responded, and those who did used a very civil tone.
• Ottava's responses were dismissive, of not blatantly sarcastic and/or insulting:
  • to WiseWoman
  • to Robert Horning
  • to Draicone, Draicone
  • Countrymike
  • looking into who that was, but I think I know
  • to Cormaggio (This was actually a much better tone, but seems to imply that he's the one making the decisions. A link is needed to the mailinglist for Ottava's view of his position here).
  • to Jadeknight Quite polite, but JK was not on the axe list.

SB Johnny violated cross-wiki RfC standards by canvassing users, users who have not had any relationship with Wikiversity for many years and, in many cases, abandoned Wikiversity long ago. Their opinions are disconnected from Wikiversity's current standards and methods, and SB Johnny knows this. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate claims of authority

Assuming the IRC log page is undeleted, it will provide an example of how this "authority" is used abusively. He has claimed on foundation-l that he was the "chief organizer" for the project, but there seems to be no record of such an appointment being made.

Being an organizer isn't a position, it is an action. It has no authority but is a description of work done. It is no different than people saying they are a top content editor or FA contributor on Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Abusive expressions of "authority" on the IRC channel

There are a couple pages somewhere with logs, in particular one where he is in a strange confrontation with Adambro:

• User:Adambro/IRC12Jul10 -- note that this page was deleted by Ottava shortly after this link was added to the page. --SB_Johnny ^talk 19:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That is blatant recusal failure. Ottava doesn't seem to understand that the coverup is as bad or worse than the thing he's covering up. So he made a bullying comment on IRC. That's not good, it shows an attitude problem, but ... it is not recusal failure, only threatened failure. His deleting of the log is a recusal failure, using admin tools, more serious.

Further, it's been asserted that IRC is a part of Wikiversity process. I think that's an error, and that using IRC is not, by any means, the best way to discuss Wikiversity policy and practice. But it's a bit disengenuous to assert IRC as part of the process, encouraging its use as such, then exclude the logs. My intention was to cite the log, it's already linked from the RfC, so the redlink which displays that it was deleted by Ottava will be more damaging. Ottava, truth will out. --Abd 20:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no recusal policy and the privacy policy makes it clear that IRC is not part of Wikiversity but off site just as emails between users are off site. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems pretty strange. I specifically asked Ottava if I could quote his comments from IRC on Wiki and was left with the impression that wouldn't be a problem at all so I don't understand why Ottava has gone ahead and deleted User:Adambro/IRC12Jul10 now, without even advising me of any concerns about this. Did I get the wrong impression here? Looking back at the transcript I don't see how I could have. Adambro 21:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I said you could make a few quotes. It has a whole log and I did not know of that. Here is what I said: "[2010-07-12 22:31:36] <Ottava> If you want to quote the part where I said people lack confidence in you [2010-07-12 22:31:38] <Ottava> go ahead" and later "[2010-07-12 22:35:11] <Ottava> Well, you will most likely be attacked because of http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity_talk:Privacy_policy#IRC_chat" - Ottava Rima (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Context is important just as this situation illustrates and why I asked, and I thought, got permission to quote more to post more of your comments. I asked "may I quote what you've said on IRC on wiki?", you responded "which part? and didnt I already say that my statements could be quoted? I think three times". I then said "I'd like to post everything we've both said since around 17:24 UTC (I think that's the right time)" to which you responded "You might as well just post it up at WR because that is where it will end up". There was no objection from you and it was clear you'd given the okay to quoting you on WV earlier so I'm not sure why I should have concluded you weren't okay with User:Adambro/IRC12Jul10. That you said "didnt I already say that my statements could be quoted? I think three times" suggests I asked you for permission earlier to which you made it clear you were happy about but I don't think I have logs for that period. Perhaps you do? What had we discussed regarding quoting? Posting a more comprehensive log rather than stand-alone quotes I would think benefits everyone since the context is clear. Adambro 21:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The statement about WR denotes that there is clear sarcasm operating. I gave you permission only to quote me regarding my lack of confidence in your actions regarding blocking JWS. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify which was the statement regarding you/people lacking confidence in me you are suggesting was the limit of what I should quote? Adambro 22:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I quoted it above. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it. You said on IRC "the part where I said people lack confidence in you", which part was that? Adambro 22:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It exists in that very quote. As I said, I was responding sarcastically to you requests to post private logs and even said it was hypocritical of you for suggesting such when you took a public stance against IRC log publication. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting confused here I'm afraid. I'll repeat myself. You said on IRC "the part where I said people lack confidence in you", which part was that? You've said "it exists in that very quote" but clearly it doesn't. What was it that you said regarding you or other people lacking confidence in me that you're saying was the only thing you said I could quote on WV? Adambro 22:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Adambro, I will try to explain it one more time and if you don't get it there is probably no way for you to get it. You asked to quote me. I gave you something to quote. It was sarcasm. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

So I was never allowed to quote anything, it was just sarcasm? Only a short while ago above you said "I said you could make a few quotes" so what exactly did you mean by that? Adambro 23:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you could - of my sarcastic replies to you. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Rock drum

Wikiversity:Colloquium#Admin_problem: some response should have been offered to this at the time, but there were other issues that overwhelmed the attention. In a nutshell, Ottava accused this person of being a sock puppet, but refused to say exactly whose sockpuppet it was supposed to be.

"Beetlebaum" vs. Ottava's alternate account

Note in this conversation allusions to an "undisclosed" puppet of JWSchmidt. This discussion is about an undisclosed alternate account owned by Ottava.

It isn't undisclosed. Sj knows about the account and information on it was provided to the Foundation via him. It is also known by multiple admin. These are standard procedures across the WMF for dealing with such accounts used for such reasons. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

KBlott

The block of KBlott was actually quite appropriate, however the way it was handled was not. This seems to be a case where a mentoring approach would have borne more fruit, as opposed to the punitive "anti-sock" approach taken in this case. This seems to import some of the less desirable aspects of the Wikipedian system where guilt is often ascribed before a careful examination of the situation.

See the user's talk page for a general overview (see also this diff). The user was not warned before being blocked. Ottava claims to have investigated the background, but this seems to have mostly involved asking the admin on WP who blocked the same user there. Abd has since investigated more thoroughly, finding evidence that provides fairly substantial reasons to give the person the benefit of the doubt.

A short block for using the real name could indeed be justified, as long as we have what is, for Wikiversity, probably not the best policy as to administrators (I'd leave it in place for ordinary users). However, blocking before warning and repetition after warning is not, nor is indef block for a first offense. I'll certainly include information on KBlott as part of the review, but what is far more relevant than the original block is how Ottava justified it and has argued about it. It is part of a long-term disruptive pattern. --Abd 21:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement for warnings before blocks nor is there a restriction on blocking someone for multiple problems - outing, plagiarism, and major cross-wiki abuses. We do not have a blocking policy but the proposed version does not require a warning. Stop with the imaginary claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Background from Wikipedia ARBCOM

• It's a very long read, but the evidence page shows that these issues are long-standing and that he has proven unable to back down when doing such would have been appropriate.
• He later appealed, and the block was switched to indefinite. Note that part of the decision relates to his history of accusing people of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry.
• As a somewhat trivial point, a large proportion of Ottava's contributions here are actually a form of "proxy editing" articles he's interested in on Wikipedia (for example, this page). While there's nothing wrong with that per se, it does explain why he came back after "retiring" last year.

I never retired last year. I was busy with the WikiCup last year. I only had two months of admin inactivity. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You claimed to have retired during a discussion about your arbcom case, which I was trying to discourage you from pursuing because I was pretty sure what the outcome would be. --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Lying is against the Wikiversity Civility policy. The word "retired" doesn't appear anywhere on your link. What I said was that I "stepped down" from active duty as a patrolling admin and any interaction with you. There was never anything close to a retirement and you know it. Yet, you persist in making blatantly misleading comments. As you even point out: "BTW, you don't seem to be resigned as far as I can tell[7]." Thus, confirming that your above statement contradicts a previous one, showing a manipulation of truth to try and push an agenda. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Sj has stated publicly that my lecture notes and the rest are actually what Wikiversity is supposed to be. Sj is a Foundation Board member. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ottava, on this page, is providing more and more evidence, impeaching himself. That's convenient! Does Ottava have any friends who will advise him to sit on his hands, take a wikibreak, anything sensible? (Or, alternatively, to advise us to "stop harassing this poor innocent servant of Wikiversity"?) --Abd 21:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is not at all helpful or constructive. --SB_Johnny ^talk 21:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

What sarcasm, SBJ? The comments above are not sarcastic. They are serious assertions. The comment by the imagined "friend of Ottava" might be how someone neutral would see the situation if you and I are off our rockers. Do you know, SBJ, that I always maintain this possibility in my mind? Notice that this comment is in parenthesis, as an alternative. What has been lacking, however, is any sign that anyone actually thinks this, here, on Wikipedia Review, or anywhere. More likely, a "friend of Ottava" would advise Ottava more or less as you and I have, with Ottava going ballistic over our advice, and probably blowing away, as well, any other would-be friend who disagrees with him. --Abd 22:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Carrying personal disputes too far and in an authoritarian manner

The text and headings below were copied from User:Abd/Community Review/Ottava Rima. Abd had started creating a community review in August 2010, shortly after the events described there took place.

Abd:'Incivility' Summary

Ottava Rima has been warned for incivility, many times, has not acknowledged, apologized for, nor has he removed or struck such comments, and he has continued the behavior after ample warning. This was the subject of a Wikiversity:Custodian feedback request, which failed to resolve the issues.link to version as archived.

Abd: 'Incivility' Evidence

Talk page warnings for incivility

• 22:09, 28 July 2010

• Response: reverted warning with (removed), response on Abd talk.
• more incivility. Hence I blocked for two hours.

• confirmation of civility reminder by Jtneill, after review at [1].
• Requested strike of uncivil comment, based on response to incivility warning, calling Abd a "hypocrit."

• Note that Ottava promptly filed Wikiversity:Community Review/Jtneill after this set of edits, as an apparent retaliation.

• another warning, based on [2] in which he called an apparent good faith comment a "lie."

reverted warning without comment. (Note: users may remove content like this from their talk page, but it is generally disapproved for an administrator to do this except for vandalism or grossly inappropriate comments or questions. Removal without comment of a warning may be equivalent to denial of the appropriateness of the warning.) --Abd 18:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ottava blocked me, Sept. 6, covered in another claim. After the block was reversed by SB_Johnny, Ottava became increasingly and disruptively uncivil. I was attempting to discuss the proposed changes at Wikiversity talk:Blocking policy, and Ottava continued to claim that I was disruptive, instead of discussing the content, this is a sample. Attempting to edit the policy was "vandalizing," discussing it in depth and detail is "pontificating," and, of course, I'm "overall nasty." All with no evidence. Ottava disregards Wikiversity:Civility policy; he sometimes claims, if incivility is pointed out, that it's "true," which is not an excuse for incivility. And also, it happens, it's not true. I was not vandalizing, and while pontification could be a fault of mine, it's rude to say it, and "nasty," well, that means "uncivil," and then the question is whether or not the language used and the facts alleged are necessary. He's calling possibly good proposed policy content "vandalism," which is preposterous on the face and uncivil. If it was vandalism, why has he not requested a custodian block me for it? --Abd 00:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Abd: 'Threats of block' Summary

Ottava has repeatedly threatened to block Abd while clearly involved in conflict with Abd. In no case were these threats based on blockable behavior, as confirmed by others. --Abd 18:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Abd: 'Threats of block' Evidence

• "Only warning" re my primary revert of Ottava's edit to the Candidates for custodian page. Ottava reverted. Darklama restored it, pending completion of the process. If you continue even though this long standing policy is -very- clear on the matter, you will be blocked and a ban proposal will be put up. The community rejected Ottava's position. What's important here is that Ottava threatened to block if I dared to revert him. He's asserting that he has superior rights as a custodian. It may surprise some, but that is not the way it's supposed to be. He is prohibited by normal recusal policyrom blocking while involved in a dispute.
• Stop self-reverting. This made no sense at all. Self reverting in the manner you are doing is disruptive. Do it again and you will be blocked. Ottava provided no diff, and the edit I guessed he was referring to was completely proper. It was a proposed edit to a proposed policy page. Later, I made more or less the same edit without self-reverting, having provided opportunity for discussion, and Ottava revert warred over it and blocked me, see the section here on use of tools while involved.
• another threat of sanction, later in the same discussion. Anyone can be blocked for helping a user evade a block - reinstating a user's edits like that is helping them. I had been helping enforce the Moulton block, by reverting his contributions on sight, as is allowed by the policy change I've been proposing -- and it is standard practice. However, those reverts are not content decisions. I was logging and reviewing the edits and if they seemed acceptable, non-disruptive, I reverted them back in, usually having provided time for comment, for I kept a record of these, see [3], usually stating my intentions. Ottava is here taking a position which is harsh, which represents content censorship, and which has been rejected on Wikipedia. Restoring useful or harmless edits of a blocked editor is not an offense. "Proxying," which would be automatically restoring them, or making edits on behalf of a blocked user, could be. Generally, any editor who can make a choice can undo the choice. If I reverted, I could undo my revert! Then, if someone else objected, they could revert me. It happened once or twice, and I did not restore the material; rather, I used other devices to make the history transparent. Nobody objected to that, so far. Several times, though, Ottava or Adambro have complained about "proxying," which is not an accurate description. --Abd 00:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Abd: 'Recusal failure' Summary

Ottava revert warred with Abd on two policy pages, warned Abd that he would block if Abd continued, then, when Abd made another revert, the first on that page, seven minutes after the warning was issued, Ottava blocked Abd, including preventing Talk page access, without necessity, for reverting had ceased. Ottava accompanied this with incivility, failure to assume good faith, and invitations to leave Wikiversity, which continued after the block was lifted by SB_Johnny.

Abd: 'Other bullying' Summary

• Ottava threatened Adambro with desysop, on IRC, if he placed a block longer than 24 hours.[4] If Adambro was to be recused from blocking, he'd be recused from all blocking, not just blocking of 24 hours or more. Ottava was attempting to coerce Adambro to follow his personal opinion, not policy, not by persuading him, but by by threatening him. This discussion was appalling.

• When Jtneil confirmed that Ottava had been uncivil, Ottava promptly filed a Community Review on Jtneill, with trumped-up charges hastily put together, and no prior attempt to resolve disputes. From the timing, this was clearly retaliatory.

Abd: 'Other bullying' Evidence

• When Jtneill agreed with my position on the closure of my custodian candidacy, Ottava threatened to "report him at meta." Later, Ottava filed Wikiversity:Community Review/Jtneill over this and other issues, without having followed standard dispute process. Community Review is the last step, not the first, and it was blatantly obvious that Ottava's filing was retaliation for Jtneill confirming my civility warning, just as it's quite clear that Ottava's sudden turnabout on my custodianship was a result of that. From a situation where there had been hardly any comment about my actions from him, suddenly his comments treated the whole period as a disaster from start to finish.

Abd: 'General Conclusions'

Ottava has behaved as if he owns the wiki, and has consistently argued toward his own conclusions rather than toward resolving disputes and settling controversies. When confronted with his actions, he has presented false and misleading explanations, and has mischaracterized the behavior of others, seeking to lessen their influence in the community. He has wikilawyered whenever it suited him, demanding that others follow strict standards that he invented, while he himself has ignored basic policy. When I blocked him for incivility, for two hours, he unblocked himself, went to meta and requested immediate desysop, claiming that this was routine, a position the community rejected per custodianship policy. He cannot be trusted to be honest, straightforward, and restrained in the use of tools.

Review started

Since we're already in the throngs a bit now, I've posted the actual review page: Wikiversity:Community Review/Ottava Rima. I'm afraid I missed some of the most recent comments here, feel free to add them where they're supposed to be. I'm off to get dinner and take some cold medicine. --SB_Johnny ^talk 22:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a relief! I haven't looked yet, and don't know whether you did a Good Job or a Lousy Job, but I'll say this: I'm a lot happier that someone else has filed this! I'll look it over. The CR as I'd drafted it wasn't complete, by any means. Thanks. Now, this would be sarcastic: "Darn! Why does everyone else get to have the fun?" Seriously, this is not fun. It's a shame, really. When I ask if there is anyone who would give Ottava some good advice, I'm sincere and serious. On Wikipedia, I begged, for too long, for a friend of WMC to steer him right. They attacked me instead, for "grandstanding." So Wikipedia lost an admin, and it could have been avoided. Maybe. He might have listened to those he knew were friends. My theory is that they were not really friends, they were using him, each for their own agenda. Ugly, I know. But that can be real society, sometimes. --Abd 23:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)