Summary: Telling people to leave Wikipedia is not nice. Don't do it. This is not the place to argue about the MoS. Don't do that either. Horses die. Stop beating them. --Haemo (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

During the past two days, Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has shown repeated, extreme incivility towards multiple editors on Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton. In a discussion about the length of the article (which reasonable people can disagree on, but in which the consensus is against Ottava Rima), Ottava Rima has told several longtime editors that if they disagree with his interpretation of WP:SIZE as it applies to this article, they should "leave Wikipedia". Examples include this statement to Wasted Time R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), this additional statement to Wasted Time R, this statement to Tvoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and this statement to both Szyslak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Tvoz.

Bear in mind that WP:SIZE is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule, and that the Hillary Rodham Clinton article currently measures about 9,500 words and 59 kB of readable prose, both within the "6,000 to 10,000 words" and "A rule of thumb"/under 60KB guideline for acceptable length, albeit at the high end. Thus, a good case can be made that Ottava Rima is not even correct about his contentions of the article being in violation of WP:SIZE, and indeed a number of other editors have indicated they have no problem with the article size. And even if it were against WP:SIZE guidelines, telling multiple editors to "leave Wikipedia" is far from an appropriate way of dealing with it. As evidence that there are differing interpretations of WP:SIZE among different articles and circumstances, there are currently at least 10 existing FA articles longer than this one. So the point is again, this is clearly an issue about which reasonable editors can disagree. The issue for ANI is not the article size disagreement itself, but Ottava Rima's extreme incivility in dealing with the disagreement.

You can find plenty of other rude, incivil, and uncollegial Ottava Rima comments throughout Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Article length and Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Trivia in notes.

A little while ago, Onorem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) warned Ottava Rima about the "leave Wikipedia" comments on User talk:Ottava Rima, but Ottava Rima deleted the warning with the comment "Wikianarchists don't belong on Wikipedia, and if people can't follow community standards, then they should go elsewhere". An exchange followed at User talk:Onorem in which Ottava Rima told Onorem to leave Wikipedia.

This is not the first time Ottava Rima has gotten into civility and other issues. User talk:Ottava Rima is sanitized now, but looking at Ottava Rima's block log, or at back versions of the talk page such as this from three weeks ago, shows lots of complaints, blocks, etc. along what seem to be similar lines. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I must say, Wasted, you sure know how to twist what is being said into something completely different. It should be noted that you have made over 1,000 edits to that page and that you are complaining because it needs to be trimmed. There is no other evidence to this case required beside this simple fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And Wasted, please show where this is appropriate, especially when that person has very little to do with any of your actions, except that you are trying to bring in an outside complaint that was not issued by the other or cared to be issued by the other, when the main topic is your article in which you edited over 1,000 times and refuse to trim down. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The instructions at the top of this page said that I was supposed to inform everybody that I mentioned in my notice, so I did. Wasted Time R (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The instructions do not say to add people who do not actually deal with the topic at hand, but are added in order to make the topic seem larger than it actually is. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The topic is you telling people to leave Wikipedia, which you did to Onorem with this edit here, in which you also called him/her a "Wiki anarchist". Wasted Time R (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you try and not misquote me or misconstrue what I have said? Ottava Rima (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this is Arbcom-banned user Sadi Carnot? He shares the same obsession with how Wikipedia articles must be strictly limited in length. I could be wrong, though. Right now, it's just an idea. szyslak (t) 05:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an article put up for FA Review. The article would not load on two of my computers. The first because it was dialup and took over two minutes. The second because of the excessive formatting across the page. The user was unwilling to take any of that into consideration, and constantly made claims that were not true according to MoS. Instead of wanting to cut down the page to make it readable by others, he refused to and started misattributing what the policy actually stated on the issue. This is an WP:OWN problem. Furthermore, I have never been blocked for incivility. My blocks were based on RR violations and have nothing to do with this page. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's probably not very helpful to suggest right now. With so many users it's very possible to have multiple groups that have similar attitudes, so unless we have some actual technical evidence, I would hold back on the sock accusations. -- Ned Scott 05:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, looking at the two's edits, I don't see any overlap in areas of interest.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryulong, it must be noted that Szyslak is one of those who commented from the Hillary Clinton page. Such accusations seem to result only from a complaint issued against an FA candidate that did not meet the MoS guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I merely watchlist Hillary Rodham Clinton because it's a common vandalism target, and as a close follower of U.S. politics I can check recent edits for original research and notability. I have no involvement in the current FAC discussion, nor do I have any interest in whether this article becomes featured. szyslak (t) 20:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left Ottava a note on his talk page, telling him to try not to sweat this kind of stuff on pages as active as the Clinton page. He's got a point that it is pretty long, but it's a very hot page right now, so it's not really uncommon. I don't think any admin action is needed right now, just a little context a helpful note. -- Ned Scott 05:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether the article is really too long, but whether an editor should be telling other editors to "leave Wikipedia" and other incivilities when they don't agree with his interpretation of a guideline. Tvoz |talk 05:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz is one of the editors from the Hillary Clinton page. And yes, if people disagree with the MoS, then the best option for them is to move to another Wiki. The same thing is told to those who want to write purely in-universe. There are Wikis that cater to such people. It is not an insult. It is a plain fact that there are others that are far more accommodating to such viewpoints. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You might not see it as an insult, but it's really not something you should say to other editors. No matter how much we believe ourselves to be right, and no matter how much we actually are right, we are working with volunteers here, and it's far better to make a strong argument for your view than to tell someone off. -- Ned Scott 05:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I understand that, which is why I told Ottava that it was best not to let this kind of thing bother him. It's very easy to get passionate about these articles, especially now with the elections and all. At the same time, that high activity makes these articles harder to manage, which adds frustration to the passion. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not passionate about it. I don't care about the page. I'm not an editor on the Hillary Clinton page. I am an FA Reviewer. It was put up for FA Review. I made the comment that was exact. People disagreed with it, made claims about the MoS which were demonstrated to be false, and claimed things about the size that was demonstrated by myself following MoS guidelines to show size as to be false. Thats the extent and if they don't want to trim it, then it wont pass into FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, then we might just have a communication problem here. Editors are seeing your comments as very aggressive, but you didn't mean it that way, perhaps. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Wasted Time R and the other editors who actually maintain the Hillary Clinton article weren't trying to get it to FA, and the FA nominator hasn't even edited the article. It's also worth noting that the "demonstrated to be false" is a matter of interpretation. The objection here isn't to the fact that you made a complaint about the article's length, it's about the vitriol with which you attacked those who interpreted the size guideline differently from the way you do.

Ottava, you've only been editing here on a regular basis a few months. Wasted Time R has been working on Wikipedia since 2005. While "seniority" doesn't give anyone any rights here, it might be worth your while to consider whether it's appropriate to take this sort of my-way-or-the-highway attitude against such a prolific contributor, who's been featured in the media as the very model of a modern Wikipedian. Or, to put it another way: some humility might not go amiss. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I have only been edited as a registered user since last Fall. There is a difference. Furthermore, seniority is no excuse for excessive page length. Not even Bill Clinton is as long as Hillary's page, and Bill has more historic notability than his wife, seeing as how he was President for 2 terms and governor for 2 terms. And Vitriol? That is a lovely way to associate to my words which is obviously lacking. My words are empty, cold, and to the point. If an editor is unwilling to trim down an excessively large article, then there is a problem. WP:OWN clearly covers such situations. And "demonstrated to be false" is completely correct, seeing as how using the MoS guidelines to find prose size was put into effect, "edited" in, reverted back, and shows 64k for all who wish to see. Readability guidelines on Size clearly state "50k" for being the appropriate top for readers. This isn't splitting hairs. This is a large difference. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And Josiah, do strike your comments. We all know of those featured in the media as "good Wikipedians" who turned out to be nothing but deceivers. Being in the media for editing Wikipedia means nothing and pointing out such goes against the spirit of Wikipedia itself. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I find that offensive, as someone who has also been interviewed about Wikipedia editing. Josiah's comment about Wasted Time R's integrity is on point. And I find it odd at best to attack someone for having made 1000 edits to an article; to me it is an indication of conscientious care taht should be praised. And the accusation of ownership is invalid, if one takes a look at the history. Tvoz |talk 06:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You can find someone offensive as much as possible, but being interviewed is not a determiner of "quality" as an editor, nor does it give you special privileges. 1,000 edits is a strong indicator to willingness of WP:OWN. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've said more than once that you should follow your conscience in your recommendation for the FAC - if you don't think it's ready for FA, then oppose it. That is not what the objection is to your behavior, as has been said repeatedly by several editors on the page. Tvoz |talk 05:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You can say all you want about my behavior, but there is nothing there except that you disagree with my comments and have no grounds to issue a response against them than to trump up a charge that does not actually exist. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Policy, especially the manual of style, is not a suicide pact. Telling users "obey it or leave" is not at all constructive. We do whatever is in the best interest of the project. Mr.Z-man 06:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Unwilling to edit a document to make it legible by a significant amount of people is important to Wikipedia. It doesn't need to be a suicide pact, but that is a primary basis of respect. By refusing to trim down the article appropriately, the article mocks Wikipedia, and there are violations of WP:OWN, WP:FRINGE, What Wikipedia is not and many other rules. The article did not meet the standards of a Wikipedia article. There are other communities for different standards. It is appropriate that, if they strongly believe in not following the MoS guidelines, that they move to those communities because they will be more comfortable there. However, if you don't believe in the MoS like you claim, please make a complaint against the MoS there. However, it reflects community consensus and should be respected as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting way off topic. The issue here is incivility by Ottava Rima, not the content dispute. The details of the argument on the article page should have nothing to do with the amount of civility involved. Ottava Rima telling experienced editors they should leave wikipedia if they don't agree with your views on something is uncivil and unproductive, and doesn't help to gain consensus on your views. Please understand that was the concern behind this ANI post, regardless of the circumstances involving the article. Redrocket (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the two cannot be separated, because I told them that if they didn't like the MoS, that they are better suited to a different Wikipedia. That was construed to be incivil, even though it meets none of the incivility requirements nor is anything approaching incivility. An experienced editor would be willing to cut down an extremely larger article to fit in with MoS, not constantly misquote the rule, misstate the size of an article, and show severe WP:OWN problems. I suggest you redact your words until you acknowledge the fact that there was unwillingness to edit an article coming from an editor who made over 1,000 edits to said article. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, you could have made your point about the length of the article without suggesting that everyone who disagrees with you must redact their comments or leave Wikipedia. I'm not a huge fan of WP:IAR, but this seems to me to be exactly the sort of inflexible rule-mongering that justifies its existence. See also Wikipedia:Use common sense. Your demands that every editor must share your particular interpretation of a guideline or leave Wikipedia are unproductive and disproportionate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please refrain from misrepresenting me again? I did not ask everyone to "redact", but only the comments that were outright wrong or did not belong. Secondly, if someone strongly believes in having a very larger article, then yes, they should find another Wikipedia. The article lengths top out for a reason, and that reason is that there are physical limitations to what length people can read articles. This is not stylistic. This is basic principle. I have not demanded anything from other users. You have placed that upon me in an additional misrepresentation of my position. I would suggest that you follow WP:CIVIL and stop adding words to my position that have never appeared there. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

All right, "everyone" is an exaggeration. But there does seem to be a pattern of pedantic inflexibility here. (And I know from pedantry!) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A pattern developed from one page that results from a FA Review? My concern was a legitimate concern. People brought up issues such as "MoS really says this" or "my tool says this", which were explained via the guideline. I don't really see where you can develop a pattern of behavior. My computer actually did freeze twice from trying to load the page. That is a legitimate concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And Josiah, I know you, and you might actually remember me. Its complicated to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note from an uninvolved editor. For the record, Ottava, your previous blocks mostly had to do with legal threats, not 3RR violations. Also, you should realize that nobody, not you, not Jimbo, nobody on Wikipedia can order an editor to make changes to an article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

1. That is wrong. My previous blocks had only one "legal threat" that was a block that was withdrawn, but mostly about 3RR, which can be proven by a clear copy and paste. 2. I never "ordered" anyone. I brought up the issue in a comment, and the editor in question said that the MoS said something completely different than what it did, and kept trying to add claims about the size that were demonstrated to be false. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your extensive block log shows two or three separate blocks for edit warring (hard to count because of resets.) And at least two (plus resets) for a legal threat that was apparently made, withdrawn and then restated. I'm getting this from looking at the block log, not digging through your edits to find the threats themselves. So I may have been wrong about the word "mostly". --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is completely wrong. There were two total blocks. Please follow the timing of the blocks in order to see which is which. The rest are extensions. Furthermore, the one extension was withdrawn. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note This topic is misplaced. The appropriate place for "civility" issues is Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Furthermore, the use of "extreme" in the title heading is unproven POV on an issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, if it were only a civility issue, that might be true. However, you insist on saying it's not civility but rather a content and policy dispute, so this seems to be a good place for it.

As far as I see, the two are separate issues. Even if it were a violation (which other editors disagree with), it does not entitle you to be uncivil. In all honesty, you defending your position by telling more experienced editors to go edit some other wiki just makes you seem like you don't know what you're talking about. You may be correct in saying it is not technically uncivil, however, it does seem rude and a really foolish way of attempting to get other people to agree with your interpretation of things.

Honestly, after reading you telling everyone else to redact their comments, then and you defending your position by defining the responsibilities of other editors, I don't think you care at all about being civil or gaining consensus. Good luck with all that. Redrocket (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Content and policy disputes go to the Village Pump or RfC. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And Redrocket, you are really not WP:AGF. And "telling everyone"? I didn't tell "everyone". Please stop making claims to things that do not exist. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In terms of assuming good faith, you are certainly not doing that. Your comment, whether it was intentional or not, came across as rude and uncivil. Rather than acknowledge that you might have misspoken or your comments might have been taken in a different way than you intended, you refuse to listen to the other editors explain how your words came across.

Honestly, if you would just look at your actions and see that the way you tell other editors (all of whom are also volunteers here) that they should go somewhere else isn't really a friendly way to treat them, this would all be over. Clinging to your belief that since there was a content/policy dispute justifies being rude to people isn't going to help. Redrocket (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If your claims are true, please provide evidence in which I didn't attempt to work with the editors and prove beyond a doubt where in the policy my claims are coming from and show, especially on the page, how the size format is different from the programs that they are running. I don't think you have any grounds to claim that I haven't assumed good faith, as I have not made any claims about anyone until far after it has been demonstrated an unwillingness to cut down the article length. If you think my comments are rude, then you think they are rude. But it is obvious that you are unwilling to WP:AGF from your own words, and that is a reason why you think my comments are rude. Furthermore, "volunteering" isn't an excuse to ignore a legitimate concern about page length size. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I must also question the legitimacy of your claiming my actions were rude when you, yourself, have stated: "Seriously, just leave already. Redrocket (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)" on your own talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Ah, thanks for stalking me. You are now bringing up out-of-context comments I made to a banned user who was trolling my page looking for an argument.

This is crossing over into wikilawyering in the extreme, so let's just boil it down. Ottava Rima, several other editors found your comments to be rude and uncivil. Regardless of the content/policy dispute, can you see where telling them to go to some other wiki could have been taken in a manner that would make them think you were being rude or uncivil? Redrocket (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Those who live in glass houses. You set up a standard that you, yourself does not follow. So what will it be? Still accuse me of being rude, while you, yourself, have made such equal comments? Or are there now two standards, one for yourself and one for those who are part of the opposite side of a dispute from what you believe in? Ottava Rima (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My comments were to a trolling vandal who would be banned within a few hours. Yours were to editors who are far more experienced than you, and clearly not vandals or trolls.

And thanks for refusing to answer the question. I'm going to assume that was a "yeah, I know I was being uncivil, but I still think I can talk my way out of it." Again, have fun with all that. Redrocket (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I forgot, you believe that there is a different standard of approaching people. I, however, only recommended based on their own feelings about the policy. I didn't say that they weren't welcome. I suggested other suitable ways to deal with their desire not to be under the influence of MoS. It would seem that your intention would be quite different from mine. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that WP:DNFT is probably applicable here. The question then arises, if not feeding, what action should be taken? Loren.wilton (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the use of "troll" in any kind of context of this thread would be derogatory and thus contradicting WP:CIVIL. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with LW, call it what you would like, but I'm about done here. The user refuses to discuss his actions without tying it into some crusade of being uncivil in the name of wikipolicy, so I doubt there's anything we can do at this point. He's been blocked before, so let's just leave him be with a fresh length of rope and see what he does with it. Redrocket (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Red, do you honestly not see the incivility of your tone, especially there, and the hypocrisy that it demonstrates? You have already stated that you were unwilling to WP:AGF. If you think that bringing up a legitimate concern is a "crusade", then you better take your concern to the appropriate forum, like Village Pump Policy. I do not believe that consensus will side with you. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Is this topic even necessary at this point? I believe that the above user has aired his concern quite a lot. If he really felt that my suggestions were uncivil, then he could have brought them to Wikiquette alerts. However, he believed they were "extreme incivility", which has no real meaning. What does he want? An apology for my recommending him to go to another Wiki if he disagrees with the MoS? If so, that could have been handled by a simple message on my talk page from the user. This, however, is not an "incident". There is no damage to the encyclopedia, and it obviously hasn't stopped his editing or affected his editing in any kind of way. For the most part, he has ignored my comments and concerns, and has moved on to important matters like arguing over the true eye color of Hillary Clinton and if that belongs in the article. There seems to be no point to this but to draw attention to other admin, use his background and history, and act in a way that isn't really suitable to helping the encyclopedia. I have not insulted. I have not bullied. I have brought up a legitimate concern, and I have stated the obvious: if you are unhappy with Wikipedia's policies, the easy way to deal with it is to go to another Wiki. Is that is rude? Then I guess the truth is rude. But it is not incivil to state the truth, especially in such a cold manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're upset at the way wikipedia handles these civility concerns, you probably should just go edit some other wik...

Nah, never mind. I can't bring myself to do it. Just forget it, and let's close the topic. Redrocket (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, if you're having trouble seeing what you're doing wrong try looking at this diff or this one where you order another editor to change an article according to your instructions, something I have never seen done by an editor on Wikipedia. Then you might take a look at this in which you claim that other users "will be forced to trim down their articles" if you decide they're too long. Forced? Really? By whom? And how? Since when are editors "forced" to do things on Wikipedia? Own much? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Order? I don't think you can apply "order" at all. I'm quite confused how you can even begin to construe any of those words as an "order" of any kind. "If then" clauses are definitely not orders, and saying "you can" do something is not an order. Please, you have already misrepresented by blocking record. Could you stop misrepresenting the rest now? Ottava Rima (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And that "forced" comment is conditioned on "FA review", with the implied "if you want to pass this will be required". But that was obvious from the context. So I ask again, please stop misconstruing my words to say what they do not. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Its a simple fix. Do it.—I've seen such orders from an admin enforcing policy, but surely someone reviewing for FA should make recommendations or suggestions? Saying The MoS is rather certain. If you don't like it, you can leave Wikipedia implies that one understands neither the distinction between guidelines and policy, nor the wiki process. I can only imagine the chilling effect this thread will have on any other editor considering an FA submission. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you really know how to twist words to prove a point that is clearly non-existent. An order, as everyone knows, requires the power of enforcement. By definition, without such it can only be claimed as a suggestion. However, you sure have isolated words, trumped them up far beyond what they even say, and for what reason? And guidelines are policy when it comes to an FA Review, because if it doesn't meet the MoS, guess what? It shouldn't be an FA. A chilling effect on FAs for those who don't meet MoS guidelines? Thats exactly what the rules of the FA state! Wow. I am extremely amazed by the twisting of words to promote something that is completely not represented on Wikipedia. "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Thats from the FA guideline. According to MoS, appropriate length is not over 50k. That is how we should proceed. If you don't like that? Well, go complain somewhere else, because your problem is obviously not with me, but with the process that you disagree with. That is POV pushing. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To show where Sheffield is extremely mistaken: Wikipedia:Featured article criteria says the following - "# It follows the style guidelines" and "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." It doesn't say "it should be whatever size the person feels". It clearly says that to be FA, it has to follow those rules. Its that simple. This is not a democracy. This is not an anarchy. If you want your article to be a Featured Article, it has to be trimmed. Mentioning this is not "chilling" anything. This is an elite process. Not everyone will make it. Other Wikis have lower standards and would allow such things. This Wikipedia has a strong standard of upholding the MoS in Feature Article reviews. Its that simple. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This obviously isn't nearly as absolute as you say it is, since there are currently at least 10 existing FA articles longer than this one. It would seem some editors and some reviewers and some FAC approvers have a different viewpoint than you do. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

They should be recalled. Its that simple. Justifying a violation of MoS by saying others violate MoS is not appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have quoted the entire diff, and merely emphasised the most incivil and bossy parts. Never mind. Clearly we're going to have to agree to disagree about the distinction between guidelines and policy. I don't think anyone is going to convince Ottava Rima of anything in this thread. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You can claim they are uncivil or bossy, but that does not make them true. Your constant misquoting and adding adjectives that are inappropriate prove not a point, but only demonstrate a bias and are, in fact, one of those stated to be incivil. This isn't about "convincing" me anything. This is about an editor whose article when up for FA and complained that FA requires MoS to be followed. Its that simple. If you do not like that FA review requires MoS guidelines, you cannot complain to me about it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the point[edit]

Whilst Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) keeps trying to argue about the prior issue of whether the relevant bit of MoS is an unshakeable, set-in-stone rule that all must obey or leave wikipedia, that sidesteps the real issue that has been brought here. In the context of the complaint that has been brought to ANI, it is not particularly relevant whether Ottava is right or wrong.

The issue is simple. Ottava has repeatedly failed to stick to WP:CIVIL, to the extent of telling several editors that if they don't accept his understanding of the guidelines, they should leave. Even if Ottava is right about the MoS issue, this is a completely unacceptable way of interacting with fellow editors.

Ottava's edit history seems to show a good deal of tenditious editing, WP:OWNership of articles, and wikilawyering over 3RR (and over whether this report is proper to WQA or here!). He seems to adopt a debating tactic that involves obstinacy to the extent that others lose the will to go on with the debate. This is clearly disruptive, and damaging to the encyclopedia.

Now, there are two ways to go here... Ottava can accept that there is a clear consensus that his behaviour has fallen short of the standards required, and move on, or he can continue to assure people that he is right and everybody else is wrong, in which case this is clearly going to end up at RFC.

Mayalld (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Clear consensus? No. Most of those speaking are involved in the issue and are biased to their side. Furthermore, this is in regards to an FA review. The FA standards are quite clear and will most likely not change. The fact that you ignored this is troubling to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Mayalld, most of your claims are outright wrong, and I would suggest that you retract what you have said above about my edits until you are willing to back them up. You are in violation of WP:CIVIL, which is unacceptable. Furthermore, it is absolutely hypocritical that you are acting in an incivil way while demanding that I move on. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am really having to consider the possibility that you are either argumentative to the point of vexatiousness, or that you are incredibly stupid. You avoid the point, which is central to this matter, in that you have conducted yourself inappropriately in the manner of your communications with other editors. It is not for you to say that editors should find other encyclopedias or websites to edit if you do not approve of their good faith edits. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. While we have style guidelines, and rules and policies, what we have that makes Wikipedia what it is is a sense of community; all are welcome to contribute. Your actions contravene that principle. I very seriously suggest that you stop acting in this arrogant manner, which is causing concern amongst other contributors, or you will find that the encyclopedia may very likely be leaving you for a short while. I strongly recommend that you do not respond to this comment as you have the previous ones - that would be very stupid indeed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you do the civil thing and strike your insinuations as to my intelligence. They are inappropriate for Wikipedia and inappropriate for this section. If you are unwilling to put forth a comment without attacking the personal character of another individual, please do not do such. Your comments are extremely rude and inflammatory, and serve no purpose. If you are unwilling to treat me with respect, please make it known now. If not, please do the right thing and strike your inflammatory comments that are not part of any kind of reasonable nor civil discussion. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, you fail to note the difference between an article for FA review and a standard article. If you are unwilling to see that FA Review require a closer attention to MoS and have two guidelines dealing with size, then you shouldn't respond at all to this issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Following this comment to my talkpage I issued a Level 4im civility warning to Ottava Rima, together with an explanation why WP:CIVIL and WP:Consensus violations outweigh concerns regarding non-compliance with Featured Article Review guidelines. Seeing their response(s) here and below I do not believe that the editor has sufficient clue and attempts at persuading them to act according to the principles of Wikipedia may need strengthening by the use of a short enforced break. Since I am now "involved" I leave it to the judgement of another sysop whether such a block is needed, should the warning be ignored. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Outdent

1. Clear consensus? Yes, I'd call an overwhelming majority of people commenting, including several who were not previously involved, a clear consensus! Or is this a new definition of consensus that says that people who disagree with your POV don't count?
2. No, this is NOTHING to do with a FA review. It is everything to do with the attitude that you adopted, and the manner in which you interacted with others
3. My claims are not wrong. If you would care to specify which claims you believe to be wrong, I will gladly supply diffs to demonstrate them (Though I rather suspect that most readers here have no need of such proof, and would be bored stiff by the whole thing)
4. You repeatedly wave WP:CIVIL the instant anybody dares to suggest that your actions are wrong. Civility does not demand that I remain silent on such matters, merely that I express myself in a civil manner, which I have done.

Mayalld (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your tone is "extreme incivil". I ask for you to please follow such guidelines. Furthermore, how can you say this has nothing to do with an FA review, when the context of saying that the page must be cut is in regards to meeting FA review guidelines? Also, a clear consensus is on the MoS size guidelines. You cannot mistake that. Also, you are the one putting forth claims without evidence, which is an addition breach of civil. If you are unwilling to respect my character, please, do not post. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that I will leave it to others to determine if my tone is "extreme uncivil". Your view on the matter is hardly dispassionate.

As to how I can say it has nothing to do with FA review, I can say that because it is true. The key point here is that several editors have complained about your incivility. It doesn't matter what the circumstances were, or whether the other editors were right or wrong in their take on MoS. The question is merely whether you have been habitually incivil (As an editor who was previously uninvolved, my take is that you have been habitually uncivil, but that is just my view. Should a consensus develop to the contrary, I will accept it)

I have invited you to specify which of my claims are untrue, and have offered to put forward evidence to support those claims.

Your behaviour has been called into question. It is a patent nonsense to demand that anybody who dares make an adverse comment about your behaviour stop posting.

Mayalld (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispassionate? I have been nothing but cold and scientific about this whole process. I really don't see how you can even claim that I have any passion about it, especially when I have not even made a claim about what content should be, nor do I have any actual horse in this race. And if you think that circumstances don't matter, well, I don't know how to help you. But circumstances do matter. Its called contextualizing, and the only way to make a proper decision is to see the context. Sure, you can take things out of context and make claims to what they say, but it does not make them true. There are two "Ottava Rima"s here: the real one, and the false one that you have put before everyone. You are making a mountain out of a molehill, and the discussion is completely done. This is not an "admin intervention" matter, and it is barely a wikiettiquette. Have I cussed? No. Have I personally attacked? No. Could my comments be considered brisk? Well, if they are, then the proper way is to first address the person making them and informing how one feels. What is your purpose in continuing this? Is there one? And it is not my place to defend myself against blank claims, it is your place to put forth diffs and back up your claims. But no matter what, they don't really matter here. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I despair! Now you want to argue over every blessed word!!

OK, let me be blunt. Given your continual failure to see your own incivility, even when many editors have pointed it out, and your continual perception of incivility in others towards you that nobody else seems to notice, I don't find your opinion on the subject of civility particularly compelling.

As to your repeated attempts to make this into a MoS discussion, I will say again that the circumstances are not material. WP:CIVIL contains no "get-out" clauses that excude incivility if you believe the other person to be wrong.

You were incivil in the extreme on several occasions, and have repeatedly sought to deflect the discussion of your incivility into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of the issue that you were discussing when you became incivil.

Dress it up as you will. The fact remains that your behaviour falls well short both of what WP:CIVIL calls for, and of plain, simple courtesy to other people.

I joined this discussion, having reviewed a huge number of relevant edits, in order to add an outside perspective, in the (clearly fanciful) hope that an outside opinion might convince you that there really is an issue. You obviously have no time for any opinion which does not match your own. That is unfortunate, but I really do have better things to do than to continue to trying to get you to understand where the problem lies. If anybody chooses to file a WP:RFC about your conduct, I will gladly certify it, but beyond that, I don't propose to waste any more time on you

Mayalld (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

While this may not be directly relevant, I wanted to document that I did previously try to explain to Ottava Rima that his tone could easily be interpreted as combative. He blamed other editors in the disagreement without acknowledging his own tone issues.[4]. I see the exact same issue here (and in several other FAC's in which he has participated). I strongly encourage Ottava Rima to be more aware of his tone and be proactive in changing his approach. There are enough other editors concerned with his manner of communicating that it appears to warrant some self-introspection at the very least. Karanacs (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Troubling comments by LessHeard vanU[edit]

• User:LessHeard vanU has made the following comment on my talk page: here.

This is extremely troubling, because, as he claims, the issue at hand is over images, saying - "Upon a review of Wikipedia:Featured article advice I note that the section (c.) comments only that images should comply with the various licenses and terms of use; there is nothing regarding size."

However, anyone who reads the actual dispute would see that it is an non-compliance with number 2 and number 4 of the FA guidelines that deal with page size, not image size. The fact that the above admin has misstated the issue while warning mean about my behavior shows that he has not actually read anything written in the above discussion, and chooses to make rulings not based on the actual facts at hand. This is an abuse of the privileges of being an admin and is very disrespectful. How can we trust anything that this admin says when he is unwilling to actually look at the argument? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I fail to see what more ANI can do here. People... this is what we have dispute resolution for. -- Naerii 20:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A "warning" and a claim of a blockable offense without actually having the correct information on the situation, even though it has already been laid out, is not handled under dispute resolutions, but handled by the intervention of admin to ask him to recognize the actual content before making his decisions. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

LHvU seems mainly to have messaged you about civility issues, and to have done so clearly and with appropriate references to policy. If he has made a mistake about a specific point in the dispute in question (on which I make no comment), in my experience LHvU is much more willing than most admins to discuss and apologize for any mistakes he might make. DuncanHill (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, sure, and if he does then that will be accepted and the above struck. However, his comments, to the point of "warning" me, while showing that he didn't actually read the case, is troubling to say the least. It is hard to confuse images with text, especially when there is a listing of the rules on his talk page that deal primarily with text size. If he wouldn't have quoted the rule primarily dealing with images, then you might have a point. But his direct quote and using that to show that I was "wrong" is troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Image size/page size - whatever! It has been noted that in pursuing your insistence upon application of Featured Article standards you have suggested on several occasions that those not complying should leave Wikipedia. This is a violation of WP:Civil and WP:Harassment, and is a blockable offense, and you have been so warned. That concludes my involvement in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• As an outside observer, I'll note that:

(a) We now know, if we didn't before, not to tell people to go edit elsewhere. It's rude. Everyone who has commented on this thread is in agreement, Ottava, so whether you agree or not, you should be aware that this is the consensus and respect it, even if you disagree, and refrain from saying it anymore.

(b) I can't help but note that if someone tells you to edit elsewhere, you can safely ignore them. Even if it annoys you that Ottava hasn't apologized, there's no need to turn this into a multi-part mult-kB thread until we get a pound of flesh.

(c) This is not the place for the FA/MoS discussion. It is completely unproductive to discuss that here.

(d) The horse has been dead for a long time, and IMHO continued discussion is not improving things. Suggest archiving, taking others' comments to heart, and moving on with our lives. --barneca (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion closed as There is no cabal. The editors being questioned have been empowered by ArbCom to handle the issues with these articles. This is not the venue to report abuse, it should be taken to ArbCom for review. Lara❤Love 18:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A group of admins including

• Raul654 (talk · contribs)
• Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs)
• east718 (talk · contribs)
• Raymond arritt (talk · contribs)

seems to be:

1. unilaterally deciding on content issues systematically overriding the consensus and the ongoing discussions
2. implementing these decisions by means of topic bans on the people they disagree with about the content issues in very specific edits
3. also not respecting the arbcom sentence who clearly states that any "discretionary sanction" should be preceded by a warning.

These are facts:

• Thomas Basboll (talk · contribs):
  • He civilly discussed a proposed edit in a Talk page and made a straw poll evidencing unanimous consensus between several editors usually having different point of views and receiving no opposition at all
  • He implemented his proposal specifying that anyone disagreeing had to feel free to revert
  • Thomas immediately banned without any previous warning because: the admins above unilaterally decided that his edit was "POV pushing" (despite the consensus on the talk page displayed completely different opinions).

• Pokipsy76 (talk · contribs) (myself)
  • User:Haemo removed a paragraph (summary: "per WP:BLP") without any previous discussion, a paragraph which:
    • was in the article since months without any opposition
    • was never discussed before (at least since months)
  • I reverted the edit asking to check the consensus before (a very common behaviour when unilateral possibly disputable changes are made (*))
  • the subsequent discussion on the talk page about the alleged BLP issues showed no consensus about whether the paragraph actually violated WP:BLP
  • Pokipsy76 immediately banned without any previous warning because: the admins above unilaterally decided the revert was actually a "an article probation violation and a BLP violation all in one" (despite there was no consensus between editors about such a policy violation).

• Wowest (talk · contribs):
  • an editor asked to delete a section here and received opposition by all other users who replyed to him (i.e. consensus was to not delete)
  • another editor not involved in the discussion unilaterally decided to removed the section (summary: "rm uncited commentary")
  • Wowest reverted the deletion (Summary:"Restoring large section deleted without discussion or consensus")
  • Wowest banned because: the admins above unilaterally decided that his revert "runs afoul of our policies on original research and verifiability" (despite the consensus on the talk page was definitely to not delete)
• Xiutwel (talk · contribs)
  • this is the most astonishing case, an admin unilaterally decided to ban him indefinitely without any previous warning "after reviewing the arbitration enforcement posting concerning him" (NB: the arbcom didn't sanction Xiutwel) "and looking at this edit" (i.e. Xiutwel gave a warning about the arbcom decisions on a user talk page).

Worth noting that these 4 editors were all described by the person asking for these bans to be "POV pushers" promoting "fringe views" and making "tendentious pro-Truther soapboxing". "The time for nonsense on these articles has come and gone" he concluded. So this seems to be a sort of an "ideological" war where people respecting consensus and freely expressing and discussing their opinion are banned because admins disagree with their opinions about very specific content issues, even when these opinions reflect the consensus(!!)

I think this is an incredible series of abuses with exagerately severe sanctions for having done absolutely nothing, a series which will probably continue unless some kind of authority is going to stop or control these admins. I think wikipedia shouldn't toletate this kind of abuses.

Any comment by completely uninvolved admins and users will be appreciated.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(*) See for istance Okiefromokla, Ice Cold Beer, Rx StrangeLove, Okiefromokla 2, Rx StrangeLove 2, Haemo 1, Haemo 2

Just to let you know, Lawrence Cohen and Raymond Arritt aren't admins. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:12, 24 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Raymond must be an admin since he banned me.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your block log says otherwise. Mayalld (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No he didn't.-Wafulz (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)User:East718 blocked you, not Raymon. He says in his block summary that you were being blocked for violation of your topic ban [13] -- not for messing with an article that was on probation for BLP concerns. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:18, 24 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he blocked me because of the violation of the ban of Raymond.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::What ban of Raymond's? Raymond is not an admin and cannot enforce a ban. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Whoops, so he is. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

He did, see here.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Actually I was wrong about that -- Raymond is an admin Raymond arritt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Sorry. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:32, 24 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Other facts - at least one of those four is not an admin. Orderinchaos 15:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm abusive because I supported giving Pokipsy76 (talk · contribs) a topic ban because of this egregious violation of WP:BLP, WP:V, and the general probation on these articles, as he inserted here, attacking BLP subject Larry Silverstein? I'm abusive for that?

Popkipsy, under what right did you add this BLP violation? You should be banned for that kind of nonsense, not just topic banned. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually

1. it is your opinion that there is a WP:BLP violation
2. this opinion didn't have the cosnensus in the discussion page
3. I don't see how my opinion about whether it was a WP:BLP violation, if wrong, should result in a ban. Are you suggesting that if instead you are wrong then you deserve a ban?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a BLP violation, because it makes claims about a Living Person and offers no sources that explicitly back said claims. They may be true, they may not be - but you cannot, cannot, cannot add such material with ^{[citation needed]} tags. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, possibly I was wrong about this however I didn't ask to keep the text, I asked to discuss before. But now let's talk about the bans instead!!--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You edit warred to insert a BLP violation: if I were watching that article and saw this, and I were an admin, you would be on an enforced 24-hour break for that action. BLP is non-negotiable. No BLP vio? What do you call saying a living person profited and took a payout on the destruction of the World Trade Center and deaths of 2000+ people, UNSOURCED? Someone please topic ban this fella from any BLP period if this is the mindset we're dealing with. Your services are absolutely not welcome on any BLP if you believe this, Pokipsy. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Asking to discuss unilateral changes from previously estabilished version of the article before implementing them is normal practice, if this would be "edit warring" then I we are full of edit warriors.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And you don't need consensus to remove it. --Kbdank71 15:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It was the estabilished version of the article since months. People usually says that consensus is needed to change from the estabilished version. Don't you agree with this common practice?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not for BLP vios, no. --Kbdank71 17:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Which policies make exception?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a textbook WP:BLP violation. That's clear. — Scientizzle 15:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

1. It seems to be not so clear if there has been a discussion on the talk page reaching no consensus.
2. Wikipedia works through discussion and consensus, not through unilateral edits pretending to be the correct interpretation of the policy
3. It's not clear why if my interpretation of the policy is wrong in a particular case then I should be banned without any discussion, unless of course you are assuming I am editing in bad faith--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)