Ottava leaves Wikipedia Options

[Coffee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=324205438

[Moulton]

By now, it should be recognized as an axiom that WikiCulture is a crazy-making culture. Some people are more susceptible than others to being driven to distraction by the shenanigans of that drama-laden site.

What varies is how people react and respond when they are being driven crazy.

Some just walk away. Eventually.

Some go off the deep end.

Some search for functional solutions (which may not even exist to be proposed, let alone adopted).

Ottava took his unsolved problem from WP and reified it here on W-R, to see if anyone here could act back a functional solution. W-R failed to present Ottava with a functional solution that he could ferry back to WP. Instead, W-R just banned him.

I happen to believe there does exist a functional solution, but neither WP nor W-R seem inclined to embrace it.

[Milton Roe]

Ottava took his unsolved problem from WP and reified it here on W-R, to see if anyone here could act back a functional solution. W-R failed to present Ottava with a functional solution that he could ferry back to WP. Instead, W-R just banned him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ctions/Evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...#Final_decision

See, Moulton, that's your problem. You seem to think that all people who have severe mental problems A) are curable, and B) might be curable here on WR with "talk" therapy. As for the first assumption, it's your dead fish; good luck with it. As for the second, Somey or some mod should give you your own fishtank subforum so we can all watch to see how you "cure" somebody like Ottava of his "issues."

Now, the "issues" that Ottava has are indeed narcissistic wounding, since Ottava believes he is a worldclass expert on whatever issue he happens to be arguing about, and that other people are either idiots or evil or both. He quickly elevates all arguments into an academic face-off, which, if he starts to lose, degenerates almost instantly into a personalized attack which (on WP) he attempts to carry on into Wikipolitics. Moreschi (T-C-L-K-R-D) has documentation of lots of this, and if you see the Otttava-generated WP:LAME discussion of how to name the poet Byron, you will get the gist of it. Here is more, with links from Moreschi in the first link above:

Ottava goes to war over page-size...Ottava goes to war over an apostrophe...against Maunus...against Judith...against Scott MacDonald...against rspeer...oh, look, Dbachmann has "destroyed dozens of pages" as well...Ottava goes to war over footnotes in FAs...Ottava against the OED! He's a real linguist!...general battleground stuff...Ottava wages war against copyvio...no, you have to vote my way at arbcom elections...the start of the Geogre feud?...Ottava against Everyking, gets page-banned...if even Judith is taking you to ANI...Excirial thoughtfully goes over Ottava's drama-mongering and threats of sanctions...Jeni, according to Ottava...Your qualifications are lies! Lies!

We saw all this here on WR, remember? In my own case, Ottava characterized himself as a world class expert on the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, which he decided all agreed (and HAD always agreed) on his own particular view of abortion. When he started to lose the academic and citation argument, he simply slipped to refusing to argue on grounds that I had made a minor mistake in nomenclature and thus could not possibly have any further valid points. That was where this sort of thing stopped on WR because we don't have any RfC or ArbCom, but on WP, Ottava typically carries such arguments beyond incivility and into suggesting that others be banned or blocked. His own RfA went down with much horrification, needless to say.

Here on WR, Ottava wore out a number of people with such stuff on other topics (not only me), and was banned (not by me-- I have no "say" on WR). On WP, he continuted it with many other people (thank God not me), until there are hundreds of pages of these sorts of WP:LAME Ottava-generated arguments on a most ridiculous range of topics. It isn't that Ottava's battles are all over him being expert in subject X. If that were so, we could tag him as being one more expert that WP has picked up, chewed, and spat out. Rather, it is/was the case that Ottava claims total expertise in what ever he writes about, with total scorn for all other viewpoints, classical Russian/Rand style. See evidence above. It wasted many people's time just collecting it.

Now, the problem is that WP has the same term for editors who are real experts, and editors who are faux-universal-expert narcissists. They are are called "disruptive," if they tweak the WP power structure's POV. This is rather unfortunate for us here at WR, as we see both editors who have valid points, and editors who are mentally ill, all kicked off WP with the same basic bee-hive process. The workers smother and mob the bee-wolf and eject from the hive. All the ostraca are counted and Socrates gets to chose between banning and poison. I think Moulton thinks these processes are the same, but they aren't. Sometimes you're banning Socrates, and sometimes you're just banning an ordinary asshole who has nothing to contribute but aggrivation.