Oh god, here goes Ottava again, Troll or psychopath, you be the judge Options

[Vigilant]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Image_...rendum/en/Other

He just can't seem to quit being a giant, throbbing {expletive deleted}.

[Abd]

Hint: this is not about Poetlister. it's about the independence of the wikis, and Poetlister is being used as a poster boy for global control. It's quite obvious that if protection were the goal, this would be handled quite differently.

Ottava continues, becoming stronger in his attack on Seth, using escalating descriptions of Poetlister behavior.

Civil libertarians are against people lying about their identity, infiltrating a database with personal information, and then using it to harm those people. No matter what you say, no one actually would support such action. So any claims about any ideology or groups falls flat. Merely making up a claim no one believes and trying to attribute it to a group without any basis isn't sound logical reasoning. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 01:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ottava continues to miss the point, while arguing ever more strongly. Seth is not arguing for an unban of Poetlister, he's arguing for the dangers of strict global bans, decided at meta, which then are interpreted to control what the local wikis can and cannot do. Many users (though it might not be a majority) are quite aware of just how dangerous this is. For starters, because of the huge and often highly-motivated Wikipedia user base, this would demolish the independence of the other wikis. This will happen, almost certainly, what's been seen so far is the tip of the iceberg.

"I do not support any such actions you list" - as I said, no one does. Thus, there is no reason to even assume that it would ever be worth while discussing an unban of Poetlister. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 02:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, as far as I've seen, nobody has proposed a global "unban." Indeed, one of the unworkable proposals being considered is an idea that if a local wiki wants to allow a globally banned user to edit, they should be required to see and obtain an unlock. Which then, if the user is considered dangerous, would expose "unsuspecting wikis" to the user through SUL. Rather, a local wiki can, presently -- there is precedent with Thekohser and others -- decide to allow the user to edit there, and they do it by either renaming to delink the account from SUL, or by allowing a declared sock to edit (or, it's happened, by allowing an undeclared sock to edit, but disclosed to admins or 'crats or checkusers on the site). This creates practically no hazard to other sites and does not require a disruptive and often highly-contentious process at meta.

Ottava added:

And it is silly to say that he can just do it under a new name. He has always operated multiple accounts while pretending one is acting acceptably. You do not unblock because of that. That is like saying if you put a drug king pin in jail and he continues to run his operation from behind jail that we might as well let him out. There is no logic to what you are claiming and it is utterly absurd. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 02:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

And then he gets more personal with Seth:

Seth, it has already been demonstrated that 1. you aren't part of the community, 2. that you don't know Poetlister's background, and 3. that you admit that you don't support his actions. That means that your words are empty and serve no purpose. So why continue? And if you are saying this is like jailing on drug dealer of a large operation, then good. Not being able to get all criminals is not an excuse not to lock away any criminals. Not being able to do everything is not an excuse to do nothing. That is one of the worst logical fallacies. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 03:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is so rich! The discussion is not of unbanning Poetlister. It is of global ban process. But, in fact, the major example before people's minds, it's rather obvious, is Poetlister, the whole topic was raised because of Poetlister. Ottava's involved because of Poetlister. The same principles being asserted in these discussions could easily, and might be, applied to Ottava himself. Ottava, though, doesn't care about that, all he really cares about is going after one of his favorite targets: Poetlister. If involvement with Wikiversity (which is what he means by "community") is necessary, then there is no ban of Poetlister. The RfC had, as I recall, two persons from Wikiversity who commented. (Besides Ottava? I forget). There was myself, opposing the ban, based on review of evidence and the likely effect, plus the global considerations involved with global bans, and SB Johnny, who was pretty neutral.

It's a common Ottava ploy to assert that someone he's debating with has no right to comment. Ottava is, above, revealing his concept of bans as punishment. He's not at all concerned about protection, really. Real police, concerned with actual protection, rather than "instant justice," often leave drug dealers -- and even terrorists! -- at large, because they can watch them. Ottava wants "justice." I.e., he wants to see the Bad People punished, and Poetlister is a very handy Bad Person.

[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Seth_Finkelstein You have no edits at Wikiversity]. You have no right to dispute the point that you are not part of the community. Your trying to do so verifies that there is disruption and not proper behavior. You need to stop. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 14:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC) (diff)

The question was about Poetlister on Wikiversity and how to handle that. You even acknowledged that a few times. Your feigning difference now when it is obvious that you no longer have an argument is a little unsettling. You overreached, you lost, and now you continue. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 19:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is, again, classic Ottava. When he's really gone out on a limb, he then "closes" with a claim that "You lost." That, by the way, is a classic way to troll for more outraged comment.

Look, all you idiots at Wikipedia Review think Poetlister is Evil Personified. Well, you lost! Stop lying!

This actually works with idiots. I wonder if any will bite. Someday, ask me to tell the story of the "Ignant Brothers," I heard it from inmates at San Quentin. One thing I'll point out: dealt for years with real criminals, actual murderers, felons. I don't get terribly exercised by Bad Editors -- unless I've drunk too much Wiki Kool-Aid, it rots the brain and one starts to become awfully imbalanced. OMG! They've lied about cold fusion! Call the Police! Strategic Air Command! REALLY, THIS IS SERIOUS! The future of the planet depends on this!

Seth nails it.

The issues here are about global bans, and Poetlister's case is cited as an example. Your formulation would restrict people able to comment on meta to only those who are active contributors on Wikiversity, which is not appropriate. Note, your persistent baiting of me reflects badly on you. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 19:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

'Nuff said. I predict that Ottava is history within at most a few weeks. He's on his last life at meta, I doubt that if he's blocked again, he'll find anyone willing to touch it.