Wait, am I missing something? Did Ottava Rima get unbanned after 7 years for one article only? A stub article that gets 2-5 edits per year, as well. Even with the 1RR restriction, that's as close as you get to saying "Rima now owns this article. He's a jerk and we don't trust him, but there's enough articles to go around to give him this one." For goodness sake, Rima, just make up a new name and pretend you're a new person like all the other jerks do. I really don't understand why we have this incredible bureaucracy for implementing bizarre restrictions on people that get some notoriety half a decade later when everyone's forgotten about them, while on the flip side we pass off indef bans on no-name editors like candy. --PresN03:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:PresN, I agree this has been a long time coming. But of course the committee is not saying Ottava is a jerk; by majority the committee voted to welcome him back in. The offenses that led to his ban happened a long time ago but apparently were serious enough for the strictest measure. The one-article restriction was considered a good compromise, and this article was in fact what Ottava himself proposed; certainly it can be a good showcase for him to display his considerable talent. Let me add that Ottava's unban request was well written and touched upon the relevant issues, and agreed with much of what is laid out in Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. (If I may, I wish all those who request unblocks and unbans were that careful: ArbCom's job isn't just to ban, it's also to let editors back in.) The committee has thought long and hard about both sides of the issue, which is why it's not just a simple "welcome back and have at it", because that would also mean that hypothetical disgruntled editors who oppose Ottava's return could have ample opportunity to bait him and get him blocked again. Personally, I hope that Ottava will go on to improve and write many more articles and improve our beautiful project, and I wish him all the best. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to Arbitration report