User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 3

Not to be said lightly
Saying something like "I just got an email from you saying that you are going to sue me", can be taken the wrong way and seen not as an example of how the policy can go wrong, but as a statement of fact, or a threat to say such. Perhaps you should reword that post to make it more clear you are not actually making such an accusation.

Unless you are actually trying to make that accusation, it is really not clear and it needs to be clear. undefinedUntil 05:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My Request
As per "For this reason, blocks will not usually be allowed to become a source of conflict; rather, consensus will be sought, by means of a fair and objective examination of the matter and of any policies alleged to have been breached." from Appealing a block.

1. I request that Ryulong state clearly why he felt that a 2RR violation deserves a 48 hour block. 2. I request that Ryulong state clearly why he felt that no warning was needed to be issued. 3. I request that Ryulong state clearly why he feels that my reverting back to the previous consensus page on a policy was inappropriate. 4. I request that Ryulong state how my actions demonstrate an unwillingness to talk about an issue, and then explain this in regards to the WP:NLT talk page showing that I have sought for a discussion on the matter. 6. I request that Ryulong show where I have breached a policy in my email. 7. I request that Ryulong show where polite, civil emails requesting a review are problematic. 8. I request that Ryulong show where Wikipedia states that reviews are inappropriate, or discussion on a block is inappropriate. 9. I request that I be allowed to participate in the discussion on the talk page of WP:NLT. 10. I request that my talk page not turned into a means to issue condescending attacks upon my person, as some have demonstrated to this point.

This is all I request. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Email Block
Your repeated e-mails about this block and the protection of this page are querulous. Numerous admins have explained to you that your actions were wrong, and that you were properly blocked. Continued disruption, whether by e-mail or on-wiki, may lead to an extension of your block. Sandstein (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, your comment is directly against Wikipedia policy. My comments are perfectly correct unless I violate WP:CIVIL. Emails are one of the recommended ways to settle disputes, especially when you protect a page and leave me no other option. If an admin is unwilling to discuss his decision, then he is acting inappropriately.
 * I implore you now to provide evidence of where my emails have violated WP:CIVIL or to withdraw your comment as inflammatory. My emails have been extremely formal and extremely polite. I have dealt only with issues. I have also forwarded copies of my emails to others, so there are witnesses to the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And Sandstein, incase you haven't read this - "If a user thinks an administrator has acted improperly against them or another editor, they should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, users can take further action (see Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution). For more possibilities, see Requests for comment/User conduct: Use of administrator privileges and Administrator's noticeboard: Incidents RE :)" User:Guest9999/Mop Stand. I am following exactly what has been laid out before me according to Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Because of the above warning and your continued use of e-mail to question this block, I have reset the block (it will now expire in 48 hours from now) and I have disabled e-mail for the duration of the block.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 04:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ryulong, please state which rule I have broken. If it is a Civil violation, please copy and paste which part of my email was uncivil. Unless you can provide that evidence, your actions are highly inappropriately. Thank you for your time. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The admin, Ryulong, is in breach of "Failure to communicate[4] - this can be either to users (eg lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought)." User:Guest9999/Mop Stand. Thank you for your consideration, and please state, if you accept or decline, how I should deal with Ryulong's lack of willingness to discuss a block, especially of the nature as has been put forth.
 * unblock=The above admin "reseted" a block for me following proper procedure. I have the right to email the blocking admin over their block. The fact that they extended it shows that they are acting punitively and not preventively, which goes against Wikipedia procedure. The above admin is unwilling to discuss his block, and is not following proper blocking procedures. Warnings should be issued first, especially when there were good faith edits and there was not even a chance to undo the action, which the guidelines suggest as necessary. And it is also a conflict of interest to block someone based on emails. We have third parties who are objective for a reason.
 * decline=Your only right on Wikipedia is copyright. Everything else, including editing and sending private emails, is a privilege. When people abuse their privileges, they lose them. Max S em(Han shot first!) 08:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

MaxSem, please provide evidence where I have "abused" the function, which must be a breach of Civil. The above admin made it clear that he is unwilling to discuss his block, which is against blocking procedure. That is detrimental to the community. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And Max, what the Arbitration committee rules applies to all community members, regardless of what you state. This pertains: "Since administrators are strongly discouraged from reversing one another's blocks, it is of particular importance that blocking admins respond to good-faith requests to review blocks they have made. Similarly, administrators who perform independent reviews of unblock requests are expected to familiarize themselves with the full facts of the matter before marking the unblock request "declined." " —Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, #Review and discussion of blocks

The above blocking admin refuses to respond to good faith requests for discussion on the matter and review. The above admin also refuses to put forth evidence that shows I have violated CIVIL in email. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC) unblock =I would like my emails unblocked so I can appeal the request. As Ryulong has made it clear, he is unwilling to discuss his block in any manner, and feels that a discussion of his block, even in civil terms, is a blockable offense. This contradicts the abue arb com ruling about administrators, and the administrators conduct page which states: "# Failure to communicate[4] - this can be either to users (eg lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought)." I merely want my ability to discuss this matter, instead of being censured. Instead, Max did not respond to my final request in my previous asking for my email function to be unblocked. I would ask that you do so if you chose to read this. Wikipedia is all about discussion, and why would there be such attitude to stifling discussion that is civil and appropriate to the topic? It clearly states: "If a user thinks an administrator has acted improperly against them or another editor, they should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner." How can I do such a thing if the above admin refuses to talk to me and then uses my wanting to discuss the matter to block me further? Is Wikipedia wrong? Is following what it states a blockable offense? If so, please change that in order to make sure that others are not blocked too.|


 * How many unblock requests have you been declined on so far? was it 4 or 5 now? If you keep putting them up your page will end up protected again. When everyone disagrees with you, you need to accept that even when you are really sure you are right and everyone else it wrong. undefinedUntil  15:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Two unblock requests have been made to restore my email function. Two unblock requests were made as an appeal to my blocking of my posting function by an admin who is unwilling to post warnings, explain why, or discuss the manner in any form, and who also has stated that attempting to discuss the matter is blockable. That violates ADMIN. Other admin have already stated that the nature of these blocks is suspected, and some admin have emailed me stating that they wont involve themselves out of fear of a wheel war. Why? Because the admin above are unwilling to discuss a 2RR or to bother explaining how I have violated CIVIL in email, which I have not done.


 * And Until, "everyone" does not disagree with me. You lack the appropriate ability to distinguish between such terms and reality. As you have stated, everyone was in consensus on NLT. That has been proven absolutely absurd. Yes, you are wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Soo, that is 4 unblock requests here, and also some more over e-mail? Seriously, just asking a bunch of times will not change the answer you get. If you really think there has been admin misconduct, I recommend that you wait out your block and then file an RFC or seek another form of dispute resolution. undefinedUntil  15:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the above user has stated that Wikipedia policy, Appealing_a_block is wrong. According to Until, the user is not supposed to discuss with admin blocks or ways to appropriately deal with a situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You aren't discussing the unblock appropriately. I find it a bit hard to believe that all those people who declined your unblock request have some sort of beef with you. This block has been reviewed over and over. You have made multiple unblock requests, reverting when admins decline your unblock requests, you have e-mailed unblock requests repeatedly. You are basically "asking the other parent" until you get the answer you want. undefinedUntil  15:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By "all", you mean three people. You need to stop using words that are improper and are not applicable. Furthermore, your actions are highly questionable and, like Shell, a breach of conflict of interest. I have stated in my unblock request that I want to have the email function to be able to discuss my block, which is my right according to Wikimedia. I do have the right to discuss my block, regardless if the blocking email wishes to or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Gee, most people only get 1 unblock request. You have 2 rights here, you have the right to vanish and the right to fork our content. After that, everything are you able to do here is a privilege. E-mail is not a right. What is more the blocking admin did already discuss it with you and you simply did not agree with his reasoning. That admin is a volunteer and is not "required" to argue with you days on end, he has explained the block to you and that is enough. You also had independent admins review the block. Sorry man, but this is a textbook example of a 3RR block. undefinedUntil  16:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You were blocked for edit-warring on WP:NLT ; no mention of WP:CIVIL. As MaxSem has said, you dont have rights on Wikipedia. There are community expectations of admins, and multiple people have reviewed the situation here, and came to the same conclusion. Your block was then updated to prevent you sending emails because you have been emailing every tom, dick, and harry in a querulous manner, which mean you are using up our time and patience.

I strongly advise you to sit tight for the duration of this block, and when you come back, don't ignite new contentious discussion, nor would it be wise for you to get involved in any contentious discussion at this point, or edit-war on any article, like you did on Treaty of Tripoli. You will settle in around here a lot better if you focus on building the encyclopedia, and learn the ropes as you go. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You now have had 11 admins decline to unblock you. Since you seem to be uninterested in handling that in a productive manner and instead have turned to attacking those people, I have re-protected this page until your block expires.  Please consider that even though you disagree completely with things that have happened, Wikipedia runs by consensus -- if no one else agrees with you, you're just going to have to accept it and move on.  Shell    babelfish 16:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR Block

 * unblock=I have been blocked for less than the 4 reverts. I have made three reverts in order to protect, to the most of my authority, a page. It has been demonstrated by admin that it was the wrong thing to do. However, the continual block of me has impaired the discussion on the forum, which is detrimental to Wikipedia. I wish to continue in the discussion on the talk page. However, if you wish that my voice be silenced on the issue, then feel free. I have no power to the contrary, and admin are allowed to block on 3 edits without issuing a warning regardless of how it effects discussion on important policies.
 * decline=Abuse of the unblock tag. Page protected. — Sandstein (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

''Note to any reviewing admins, this is the 3rd unblock request. Past requests reformatted by user, and decline reasons noted below under "1)" an "2)" sections.'' -- Zim Zala Bim talk  04:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, this would probably carry more weight if you hadn't used a similar (it wasn't 4 reverts and I was right) explanation last time. Honestly, edit warring is heavily frowned on, regardless of why you're doing it.  Unless you're reverting clear vandalism or obvious defamatory edits, its just not the way to go :(  Shell    babelfish 04:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who encouraged Ottava to re-write the unblock request in order to continue discussion on the talk page, in hopes that it would be better expressed that Ottava wasn't going to revert any more. Ottava is obviously frustrated by this situation, but the point still stands, and I hope the reviewing admin can take this into consideration. At the very least, I would hope they consider making the block shorter than 48 hours. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And to Ottava, it would be less confusing if the two reviewed unblock notices were still visible. -- Ned Scott 05:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring at WP:NLT, and performing multiple reverts.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Cleaned up - The above block is improper, because I was 1) following Wikipedia Consensus guidelines which specify that policies cannot be changed unless there is a higher standard of consensus, thus, my reverts were reverting a broke rule, which falls under reverts for vandalism, and do not count to reverts, 2) I did not revert more than three times if considered a revert, and it cannot be construed as an edit war when it is for preventing a policy to be changed and policy changes are important to Wikipedia as any user could come by and be confused, and 3) the blocking admin did not even use the appropriate template for said block, nor is the blocking time justified, especially when it lacked any warning behind it.
 * Response -Edit warring is wrong, and you seem to be asserting that you are more right than the others, which is not a good sign. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)}}

Response: I am not asserting anything but that the page should not be changed until discussion has finished, and the page cannot be left changed because, as a policy, it would imply that the policy is different, which does not reflect consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 2) Clean upThe above admin misconstrued exactly everything that I have stated. As I put above, and as you can read, I am reflecting only Wikipedia policy which states that a policy cannot be changed until there is a clear consensus that involves the community. The issues have not been resolved, and the change, regardless of what is said, is not to be dismissed lightly. I, Swatjester, and the original writer have made mentioned on the lettering of "on Wikipedia". Another person has questioned another aspect. That is four dissenting views. Thus, the unblocking admin failed to recognize this, and failed to address my three points above. It is not edit warring when you are protecting a policy from being vandalized, and changing without consensus is that. Read Vandalism as it states: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." By changing the language from "on Wikipedia" without a clear consensus according to the Consensus guidelines, they are in violation of Wikipedia vandalism, which can be reverted/edited without it counting as an edit war.
 * Response: Per Guy below. "I am right" is not a justification for edit warring, and disagreements about what a policy page should say are not vandalism that is exempt from 3RR. — Sandstein (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein, if you have read my complaint, you would see that your above comment, as with Guy's, does not match anything that I have stated. 3RR deals with intentions behind edits and their contribution. Also, if you continue to act in the manner that you are, you are saying that 3RR should be re-labled as 2RR, that Wikipedia is not for Consensus, and lets forget about IAR, which would suggest that my actions are not punishable since they are for the best of Wikipedia by not allowing such wording to be deemed as policy until AFTER the consensus is reached. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Per your e-mail, this is a proper block. You were edit warring. There was no vandalism or anything being undone. You weren't reverting to a consensus version. You were simply edit warring.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 01:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If that is true, why was my revert to the version that was there for over a year? Furthermore, how could there be a consensus to change it without an appropriate consensus debate nor for outstanding objections to be resolved? There were three directly opposed to the change, and two questioning certain wording. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is edit warring. Now stop e-mailing me.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 03:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You have made it clear that you refuse to discuss your block, which goes against one of the fundamental aspects of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is based on constant communication and your behavior leaves much to be desired. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Edit warring is edit warring, yes, but I don't think Ottava is going to revert on that page again. Considering the level of concern that Ottava had, I think some consideration is needed here. Ottava wanted discussion, and while it was technically a revert war, it was also a user trying to keep discussion about something alive. People were very quick to write Ottava off as disruptive, and didn't consider that other people shared Ottava's views as well. It's a very frustrating situation to be in. At the very least, 48 hours is excessive considering the situation, and that situation is now contained. I'd like Ottava to continue in the discussion. -- Ned Scott 03:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am too involved in the debate to decline your unblock request, but I must tell you that this is valid block. 3RR does not make exceptions for content dispute, and disagreements about content are not vandalism. undefinedUntil 02:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Except, Until, 3RR states that its only below the 4th revert when its clearly disruptive, and putting a page back to its pre-debate stage in order to have it stay there until a clear consensus is formed is not disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No it does not say that, if it does please point out the actual wording. I see "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule", which makes it clear need X number of reverts for it to be disruptive. Edit warring is disruptive no matter how "right" you think you are. undefinedUntil 03:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe your interpretations does not follow the letter nor the spirit of three RR. I performed one less than a standard breach of the revert rule. Such a thing can be considered as a breach when: "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." Reverting a policy back to its previous form is not disruptive, and my actions were there to ensure that there was a continued discussion. That is obvious from my edit summary. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus Policy
Comment: The policy on consensus actually says that it's ok to edit policy pages. You should read it sometime. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It does not say that policy can be changed without consensus. From taking the words "on Wikipedia" and expanding it to off Wikipedia, that a large change and does not reflect at least three opinions of users and brings up questions from two others that have not been fully agreed upon. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And the policy on edit warring says, well, basically, don't edit-war. This statement seems again to be a variation on "but I was right, so of course I can edit-war". Sorry, no.  This was not reverting vandalism, and it was disputed, so take it to talk. Guy (Help!) 01:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Guy, if you didn't notice, I was putting in that people should take it to talk. So your concerns have already been addressed in my actions. Now, could you please tone down the condescending language and reexamine the situation, because your above sentence demonstrates gaps in your understanding of the events as they have happened. I have served Wikipedia in the spirit of Wikipedia, as I have kept a policy from being changed until a Consensus is reached, and there has not been such, especially with the below conditions. If you cannot understand why said Policy pages need to stay as they were and reverted back, then we can discuss that further. However, I have made it especially clear, seeing as how thousands of users would be looking to such a page for guidelines on how to act, and it would be misconstruing Wikipedia's statement on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem was your insistence that it should be left at your preferred version and then taken to talk. Wikipedia doesn't work that way.  You don't get to select a preferred version and then demand that others take it to talk. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that the "preferred version" was the year+ held consensus version on the issue that was reverted to direct people into a conversation instead of changing things when there was clearly those in the community who were opposed to the editing and thus, a new consensus would have to be built. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And Guy, you do everyone a disservice by failing to identify that I was calling for a discussion on the talk page and for it to be broadened before I reverted the page. I think the three other admin involved knew exactly what they were doing and were violating the consensus policy when they reverted, especially when I stated very clearly to direct people back to the talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima: Consensus applies to all wikipedia pages. The page describes how to go about making edits to diverse pages, including policy. You may edit policy pages, provided you are careful. You may not prevent others from doing so using reverts (this latter could use more documentation, I agree, but that's the general consensus at the moment). --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Kim, that is not current consensus, as I have listed 3 users directly in contradiction to it and 2 whose comments have not been explicitly resolved. I lack the power to freeze a page until the consensus has been determined, which normally happens during times like that. I don't know why the various admin have chose to forgo that standard policy when it comes to such discussions as that, especially on a policy as important as that. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Preventing misleading changes in our policy pages is not something one should be blocked for. Normally one doesn't have to revert three times, but on pages like NLT, not a lot of people watch the page. Ottava, thank you for bringing this to my attention via the RFC template, and thank you for looking out for those of us that are not able to watch every page at all times. -- Ned Scott 02:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It was actually me who placed an RFC tag, but you are welcome. I do think that, at least before your comment, there was substantial consensus for the modification of the opening sentence as suggested by Mangojuice and the others, and I counted myself as a part of that consensus. I put an RFC tag to see if my understanding was correct and to ask for a wider community input. Perhaps this should have been done sooner. Nsk92 (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, my apologies. -- Ned Scott 02:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I thank you for putting the RFC tag up, because the Village Pump did not get any real conversation, especially with users claiming that the discussion doesn't belong there and silenced it from the page suddenly. Now, Nsk, if you notice, there were three people who supported the very specific "on Wikipedia" wording. That is enough to show that there is not a consensus for a change. However, I must also note that your wording is very different from the original argument by others, which was along the lines of "there doesn't need to be a consensus, as this isn't a real change." Ottava Rima (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Village Pump, I had put another pitch for extra community input there (at the same time as an RFC tag) in the hope of generating additional comments. Regarding the "on Wikipedia" wording, I'd prefer to take this discussion back to the talk page for WP:NLT. Nsk92 (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The arguments belong on the Talk page, yes, but also a statement/summary of positions belong on village pump for consideration, hence the formatting of how I approached it. Its important for people to know of a potential policy change in some form, and, since time is a factor (new/constantly added to items are seen by more), the ending of discussion would lead to others feeling that the topic may have been decided, especially with many editors claiming such (in direct contradiction to the spirit of Wikipedia that says no topic is ever really decided). The discussion definitely got out of hand when a certain editor posted off topic information, which was unfortunate. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope that other people will not follow Ottava Rima's example of blocking consensus formation. They might also be blocked. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse you, Kim, but I did not block any consensus formation. I reverted back to the standard policy page.Ottava Rima (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhh, we don't have "standard" versions, there is no such thing here. undefinedUntil  03:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhh, nothing, you know what Ottava meant, don't be rude. To Kim, Ottava was in no way "blocking consensus formation", and it is certainly not appropriate to label Ottava in that way for having valid objections. Did you see how short the discussion was before the change was made? How many days passed before a small group's interpretation was made to a blocking policy page? Even if you are supporting the proposal, you have a responsibility to give a reasonable amount of time for the community to respond. -- Ned Scott 03:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia talk:Consensus, we are discussing procedures and flowcharts. Please pitch in with your own flowchart. It doesn't match the original one, and discussing it might be very interesting. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Flowcharts don't define how we do things, nor have I seen any that tell people to consider time (at least in relation to the importance of the change). But if you think it will help, I'll check the discussion out. -- Ned Scott 03:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We might want to have a discussion about consensus sometime after your block ends. Feel free to drop me a line! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Kim, we don't need a discussion. There were four users who were opposed to it. That shows that the issue is not resolved, and having admin saying "there is a consensus" or "there doesn't need to be a consensus, the policy isn't really changing" is demonstrating a lack of respect to the issue of consensus. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, a consensus on a policy takes a very long time, and thats more than a few days. Changing the policy before that time is a breach of the policy on consensus. I do not understand how you do not see that, but I hope that you are being impartial and willing to see it. As you can see from the page right now, I am not the only one who believes in the original wording. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just looking at the "points of order". The one thing I noticed is that the consensus policy states the exact opposite of what you claim. (Though your other feelings may or may not be valid) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Kim, "points of order" does not appear on WP:Consensus. However, the flow chart clearly verifies me. They edited the policy when it was clear that there needed to be a discussion. I reverted it until the consensus was formed. Consensus was not formed, and the consensus rule was violated, because it is clear that changes to policy will take many days and a lot of conversation. There is no opposite to what I claim that appears there, but a complete verification of what I claim. If you persist in such accusations, I will remind you of "verifiability". You cannot provide quotation of what I state along with quotation of what the rule states and show it to contradict me, especially when I have quoted from the rule often in my defense. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A "point of order" is a discussion about procedure, rather than about whatever topic at hand. :-)
 * And that would likely be the new flowchart by Kevin Murray, where he thought it would be a good idea to document that particular method of policy editing. I told him there were some very big problems with that approach, and here we are with you being blocked eh? --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Kim, why would you point to a generic encyclopedic article that has nothing to do with policy? I asked you inside of the policy. You have refused to provide verifiable citations from the policy to reinforce what you have stated. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As I'm one of the people who work on documenting policy, I'm also one of the few people who are not really allowed to quote from it, as that would be a conflict of interest ;-). I have to explain everything in plain English, and try to convince you normally as if you were actually a human being who can think for (him/her)self, rather than some robot following a program.


 * Actually, that's not a bad thing in general, more people should do that. ;-)


 * Basically, all policy pages are descriptive, not prescriptive. They document best practices, but they are not binding in and of themselves. These pages only describe what consensus was at some point in the past. Just like normal encyclopedia articles they could be outdated or even wrong.


 * You're supposed you use your own brain to decide what things are actually relevant to writing an encyclopedia. Policy pages will give you a first inkling of what people might accept though.


 * So that's a first start at explaining How Things Work (tm). --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I find your edit summaries as highly inflammatory. Not only is your above post contradictory (citing IAR, which would regard my reverts to the page as not in violation of a rule), but it is extremely condescending. I do not feel that comments such as (condescending) "as if you were actually a human being" or (sadistic) "Hmmm, would you like to figure out ways of discussing that don't get you blocked?" or (taunting) "I'm not blocked though. :-)" are appropriate. I cannot prevent you from making further comments like those in the future, but I would ask you to follow WP:CIVIL and respect my talk page. I take great pains to be civil to everyone I talk to, and I would expect the same consideration in return. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am actually trying to be civil to you. Each thing I have said is objectively true, and I have said them to you in a civil manner. Some of the things I have said might sting a little, but truth sometimes does that. I find that in the long run, it is often better to actually tell a person the truth (if in a nice way), rather than simply be nice to them.

I'm trying to explain that wikipedia is run by thinking human beings, and that I believe that you are a thinking human being as well. The fact that you are a thinking human being brings with it certain (sometimes unwritten) responsibilities though. These are responsibilities that a robot does not have.

"Points of order" aside, IAR does not actually state that your reverts were permitted, see WP:WIARM for some details on why not.

Finally, if you really don't want me to edit on your talk page again after this, I will honor that request. If you'd like to ask more at a later date, I can still be reached on my own talk page, of course.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Kim, you are confusing policy with stuff that is not part of policy, while using rules in appropriately. My talk page is not for you to make condescending remarks. I have asked you nicely to follow that. If you were up to date on conduct and civil, it has a nice, clear message that says if someone does not feel that your actions are appropriate, maybe you should reevaluate your actions. My revert was to the properly consented version of a policy. If you cannot understand why the consented version of a policy is required to be visible by casual observers until a new consensus is formed, then I don't think you understand what policies actually are. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Users Concerns on WP:NLT
These users have expressed concerns on some kind or interpretation on some kind that goes against the claim of "consensus" on Wikipedia No Legal Threats WP:NLT -

User:Thebainer, User:Nsk92 (struck for clarification, the user stated above and on the page that they would be for a consensus), User:Swatjester, User:Ottava Rima (added User:Random832 who also posted a point on the matter contrary to "consensus"). Changes to a policy require a consensus that goes above and beyond standard consensus. These four people reflect a dissent which is enough to justify the lack of changing the policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You have got consensus against you, get over it. And please read this before accusing people of vandalism. Garion96 (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not four people. Consensus is not five people. Your attitude is in breach of WP:CIVIL. I have read it and I have quoted it above. Now, I direct you to WP:Consensus which directly contradicts your assessment. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nsk92 actually reverted you and specifically said that he "by and large" agrees with Mangojuice. So I'm not quite sure how you could count him under support for your version. Mr.  Z- man  01:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite simply, he did not support all of the changes, therefore, is not part of a "consensus". Read: "I am sympathetic to some of the concerns raised by Ottava Rima regarding verifying that a legal threat has occurred" and "I do have one other minor quipe with the sentence "Do not make legal threats against Wikipedia or members of the Wikipedia community". I would prefer to see something like "on Wikipedia-relater matters" added at the end of this sentence, for clarification. For all we know, one member of a Wikipedia community may be engaged in a legal action against another member of the Wikipedia community on a matter having nothing to do with Wikipedia (e.g. divorce or a custody case). I don't think it is appropriate for a WP policy to discourage these kinds of legal actions." An agreement has not been made onto the wording, and thus, the wording cannot be changed. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since we're in acronym mode, you seem to have skipped stage D from WP:BRD. Guy (Help!) 01:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Guy, have you not bothered to look at the talk page? I suggest you look at Wikipedia talk:No legal threats and then strike your comments as being incorrect. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And Guy, according to the policy about "edit warring", I should be allowed a chance to revert myself back to the previous edit to demonstrate my undesire to work in an edit war after receiving a warning. Why would such traditions be ignored all of a sudden, especially without even an appropriate template or the following of the appropriate methods on such situations? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

When someone challenges an addition like this, we're supposed to listen to those editors. I've failed to do this myself in the past on pages like WP:FICT, and I know how easy it is to just attack the one editor who disagrees as being "disruptive". Ottava Rima is right on the money, this change was made without consensus, and we should be able to discuss it, like a community. Don't punish editors for disagreeing with you. -- Ned Scott 02:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He's just wrong, he's even blocked, and I hope you learn from the mistakes of others. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have verifiable proof that I was wrong? Do you have proof to back up your claim that policy can be made without discussion? Or that my wanting the discussion to continue until the wider community has had time to react beyond a small group of involved people proved to be fruitless? Actually, it seems that quite a few people ruled and that there wasn't a consensus towards the change. Kim, you are verifiably wrong, regardless of what you claim. A block does not mean that the block is correct or appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not blocked though. :-) I never said that policy can be made without discussion. I'm just saying that your mode of discussion is disruptive. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, would you like to figure out ways of discussing that don't get you blocked? --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently, warnings are no longer issued before blocks. The idea that blocks are preventative no longer matters. Now Kim, please look at the time of my reverts. Then look at the talk page and look at what was stated until that point. Then please show where I did not make any attempt at discussion. After you do that, please look at what I have stated as the reason for my reverts, which have been to point out that the discussion has not ended and that WP:Consensus needs to be followed. Consensus states that policy changes have to have a lot of exposure and take time to make. That is not a few days or a week, but could be months or longer. And my mode of discussion? I think the fact that there were so many admin willing to jump the gun, make an edit while ignoring consensus that any block resulting from the situation is highly speculative. Especially seeing as how they are admin and held to a higher standard than just me, a normal editor. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And Kim, could you please be civil? Your last comment is a taunt. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I mean seriously, literally would you like to figure out ways of discussing (policy) that won't get you blocked?. :-)
 * And the ideal feedback time for forming consensus is 1/25th of a second. That's probably not going to be practical anytime soon (though you never know, it's the 21st century after all), but we can try to approach it as closely as possible anyway :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC) maybe I'm blowing your mind here, since this might be very different from your perception of wikipedia. Things tend to get counter-intuitive at some point...
 * "And the ideal feedback time for forming consensus is 1/25th of a second. " That is patently absurd and directly contradictory to Wikipedia. Wikipedia deals with the principle that changes are slow. Your philosophy is directly contradictory to one of Wikipedia's root philosophies. If you honestly believe in the above, maybe a different encyclopedia would be best for you. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wasn't the name "Wiki" chosen because it is the Hawaiian word for "fast"? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rome was not built in a day, so an electronic encyclopedic empire can take more than a few seconds. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock requests
Hi. It is probably best to keep the previous unblock requests more clearly discoverable on your talk page when making additional requests. I've made a small notation in an attempt to inform other admins who might come to review the block. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  04:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I will not be reviewing this unblock request. But I do want to point out, Ottava, that regardless of whether my edit will ultimately stand, your reversion to WP:NLT has been undone by 4 different users but redone only by you until after your block.  Regardless of your reasons you should realize that this strategy of trying to resolve the conflict amounts to you attempting to hold the article hostage by simply reverting.  That's why this is edit warring.  The discussion may not have been heading the way you liked, and you are always free to request more input, but this block is about your strategy in those continuous reverts.  Mango juice talk 04:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The numbers are meaningless, and the unacceptable strategy was being used on "both sides" for the past week. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If someone else was also acting improperly, that doesn't excuse Ottava's behavior. But I have a hard time saying anyone else was edit warring: the only one perpetuating a war here was Ottava.  Mango juice talk 05:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ottava didn't know how to deal with the situation otherwise, and those reverting didn't give him much choice. A premature change was made, and it should have been discussed before going back in. Edit warring is bad, we all know that, but when the other users just assume bad faith and pile-on, rather than give more than two days for discussion, I'm not going to call them innocent in this situation. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Mango, that is exactly contrary of the rule. By making the same edit over and over, regardless if there was only one change, its contributory to an edit war, especially if they do not recognize what is being stated in the edit summary. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And Mango, as admin, you should be held to a higher standard, because you know better. And yet, you continued to update the page without consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Mango, when will you apologize for being complete wrong here User_talk:Mangojuice when you claimed that 1) no one else agreed with me and 2) misspoke about how Swatjester felt on the issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, getting carried away is just one of those things, lots of people get blocked for 3RR and getting carried away in the heat of the moment, but you really do seem to be going to some lengths to demonstrate that you just don't get it. Every single person who's come here to talk about it ends up accused of being part of the cabal (TINC). The correct response is "oops, I got carried away, please unblock me and I'll discuss it instead of revert warring".  That works, in a way that "unblock me immediately because I am RIGHT!!!!" does not. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny, your RfC makes it clear that you have a major problem with abuse of power and determining that you are right. What was that about throwing stones? And Guy, I have made it clear that I wanted to be unblocked to discuss. My actions were all about discussion. The above admin refuses to discuss it in any regards, and many admin have aired how they disagree with the way this matter is being handled by them. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, you have misinterpreted that RFC; if you read it carefully, most of us are in awe of what JzG does to ensure that disruptive users are banned quickly and efficiently so that we can all get back on with building the encyclopedia without the drama. OTOH, many of us do feel that his enormous contribution to the project has soured him a little, and some of us think he needs to take a break from it.  But, that depends on whether others will fill his shoes.  Sadly, you have thus far been primarily a disruptive user, and are heading towards an permanent ban because you are going about this all wrong - you are creating a battle field every where you go. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that there are many members, admins, and even members of the ArbCom who have stated that Guy's actions are wrong, are abusive to other edits, and have argued between how to deal with them properly. Your interpretation is quite contradictory to actual evidence provided on the RfC, and I would strike your comment. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure: lots of people think that Guys actions have been wrong. If you read that page, I also think that some of Guys actions have been wrong.  But what you are missing is that he is human and he is also an outstanding member of our community: he is a net benefit to the project.  We are a community that looks after the interests of the project. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of the OWN rule, no user is really necessary to any page. Everyone is replaceable. Adminship is based on trust on using an ability correctly, which also means to use it with civility. I think your comments do not do the spirit of Wikipedia justice, because its not about "net benefit", but about treating other people with respect. This is not an anarchists network, but a place that has an agreed upon and communally accepted manner of treating individuals. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please limit comments on protected page to those necessary to explain new or extended blocks
Responding to prior comments of the blocked editor or commenting on the actions of other admins are not really consistent with the protection policy. This page is fully protected, not only the blocked editor but all non-admins are unable to post here. If we need to discuss this page we should be doing it at WP:ANI or another appropriate location where non-admins can comment, or we should wait until the block expires. Commenting by admins while the page was protected was the reason I lifted the protection before. Please leave any response on my talk page. Thank you.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As Kim notes, the page is no longer protected, so this comment is no longer of immediate relevance. Please take note in the future though, should protection be reinstated, that we have to be really careful about commenting on protected pages.  This user is particularly wont to accuse others, particularly admins, of breaking the rules - no reason to provide ammunition.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Now Doug, I am sure you don't mean to convey the phrase "wont to accuse" in a negative way, especially seeing that my complaint about your actions on another page was quite apt. Admin are human, and they are apt to acting improperly, and a reasonable person is willing to look at their actions in an unbiased manner, in which you have demonstrated in your previous action. Without others mentioning potential problems, how would anything get done on Wikipedia, especially when such is one of the foundational aspects? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)