User talk:Ottava Rima

Clean up.

Block

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

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.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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 = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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. --ZimZalaBim ^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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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. _(1 == 2)^Until 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. _(1 == 2)^Until 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)

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. _(1 == 2)^Until 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)

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)

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. --ZimZalaBim ^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. Mangojuice^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. Mangojuice^talk 05:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)