F&F appears to be implying [1] that OR is having or is likely to experience mental health problems. Is this an appropriate speculation to air here? Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say leave it. The fact that if Ottava had posted something like this he'd have been instantly blocked or at the very least warned, but members of the tag-team who have been hounding him for the last few weeks get a cheery "carry on" wave from Arbcom and their self-appointed enforcers, is a good piece of evidence in itself. Ottava can certainly be foul tempered, but if I was constantly subjected to this kind of crap, I'd be snappy too. 92.11.55.195 (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well 92.11.55.195, this is the perfect opportunity for you to gather and present evidence to support your claims that he has been hounded or treated unfairly. Chillum 01:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concern and caring for the well-being of our fellow editors, especially those who may be under stress, is always appropriate. However, good judgment should be used regarding whether the best place for expressing such concerns is on Wikipedia itself. Statements discussing this type of issue insofar as they bear on an arbitration matter should usually be provided via e-mail to the Arbitration Committee mailing list, rather than posted publicly on-wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated countless times that I am under no stress. Upset, sure. Stressed? No. Those who talk to me know that I have very low blood pressure and that I am probably too passive. Furthermore, many know that my real life situation is very fine, and none of this would affect any of that. Finally, I have already stated that I am accepting of any decision that ArbCom makes, and I have expressed my complete willingness to leave if even one Arbitrator thinks that I do not belong here. I do so with a calm mind, as I am willing to follow anything because it would be in the best interest of the project if ArbCom deems it necessary. I am here only for the project, and if the project is protected then I have no problems with the action. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as long as ArbCom knows that I have expressed this concern, I'm happy to remove my comment from the evidence section. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to assume good faith and assume you meant well, but implying that someone is suffering from mental illness could be very upsetting for the individual concerned and could actually make things worse. Had F&F not retracted the comment I would have been forced to put on my clerk hat and retract it for them. Please think very carefully about it and don't do it again. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I understand that and I apologize, but if my assessment has a grain of truth to it, is more damage done by raising it in the open or by ignoring it altogether? I could have sent an email to ArbCom (although I didn't think about it; didn't know they had an email), but the dozens of editors champing at the bit to have their say would hardly be rethinking anything as a result. This is the usual problem in mental health related issues: people pussyfoot around the problem and worry more about raising it than about the damage that might be wreaked in its wake. Anyway, I understand and apologize. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I understand your points here too. It's a difficult situation, when it arises, although I note Ottava Rima's comment that it is not at issue here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either way: Wikipedia is not therapy. Just deal with the conduct. Everyking (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please tell me how much time is left to provide evidence? And I was wondering if the word counts could be established. I trimmed mine back some and I would like to see how much I have left. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ill get back to you on the first point, on the second point your current word count is about 500, so you have a fair amount of space left. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK

Get in evidence by Thanksgiving, the 26th. About two weeks so everyone has plenty of time to turn anything in. Wizardman 06:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have now used up all of my space and I am satisfied with my evidence. I do not speak for anyone else on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm done as well, as I believe are most others who have contributed evidence so far, and while there may be a little more coming in I'm not aware of anything major on the way. If the arbitrators want to fast-forward to proposed decision within a week or so I have no objections. This should not be too hard. All participants have laid out their evidence clearly and cogently and there's not masses of text to wade through either, so reviewing and analysing can't be that tricky in this case. Moreschi (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm also done, unless something appears that requires a response. Antandrus (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to hear from Ottava first. I can work the PD within a week of the last major evidence coming in. I'll ask him. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (coughs) Didn't Ottava just mention above that he's done as well? Best, Moreschi (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but since he's the main subject of the case, I want to be extra certain. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse, I have said my peace. Tavio just put up evidence, so there may be some others. Perhaps a notice should be posted at AN or ANI asking for any final comments? I have asked for any who wanted to support me or who have contacted to support me to help craft my language in a neutral way, so I do not expect anyone else besides myself to be participating in any sort of "defense" of me. However, I am sure that there are plenty more that have raised concerns about me and should be notified that the time is drawing near. Each of the supporters of my restriction here have expressed concerns about me and my behavior, and any who have not yet posted should probably be given a chance to provide evidence to verify their reasoning if it has not yet been provided. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I will try to weigh in as soon as I have a free moment; I have houseguests and a busy week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I will put in evidence too if I have time. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's obvious people aren't done presenting evidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that is an understatement. :) The more the merrier. I've been reading things that happened 18 months ago and it is quite interesting. Half the time I expected really nasty things from the rumors and I was amused by what I actually found. Wasn't there a TV show where they paraded around people that were part of your life previously? An interesting experience. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Your Life — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There we go. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Seemingly all done now. We're all sick and tired of this case, the workshop has turned into a cesspit of nonsense, and the stress of it all makes it very hard to do any productive work here right now. I think all the useful evidence that's going to come in has done so, and anything new is just going to be adding Ottava's latest, or repetition of what has earlier been stated. If the case could now be fast-tracked I think we'd all appreciate it. Moreschi (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support moving on... I get the distinct impression Ottava wants to move to the next step as well[2], or at least to start getting feedback from the committee members themselves. I think all the skeletons are well out of the closet, as are in all probability the dust bunnies. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if there are any more skeletons left, I have no energy left to drag them out. This has been very draining. Moreschi (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick a fork in it and say it's done. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know enough about ArbCom to know whether I should weigh in here, but thought perhaps I might since my name has come up a couple times. Most of my experience with the matters at hand actually have to do with rather unpleasant experiences with Ottava Rima on IRC, and I don't keep logs so it's really just what I remember of the conversations. The only diffs I could find are:

1. this one, which was after I made a !vote he disapproved of. I only read the darn thing because he was persistently sending me PMs until I finally agreed to look at it). He then tried to convince me that I was in a cabal/tag-team/etc. with Killerchihuahua (which I'm not, but apparently one can "prove" that I am using some toolserver gizmo).
2. this one (on Wikiversity) asking me to look at an article talk discussion (he had been PMing me on IRC about that as well, but I logged off without responding).

I've tried to make it clear to him that I didn't want to be involved in this sort of thing, to no avail (in fact I rarely use IRC any more, in large part due to feeling a bit pestered). There have been a few other occasions between the two incidents, the only one I remember is the Persian Empire one, where he also accused me of defending someone (someone I had never even heard of that time), but I don't think there's any diffs for that one.

I get the impression he does this because he feels there is an organized effort on the "other side", and comes to #wikiversity-en to recruit in kind (though I don't think he's ever had success). I really mean the guy no harm, but I'm starting to feel that some sort of "ground rules" about the conspiracy theory stuff are in order: honestly I don't think he even realizes how offensive that is. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 20:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say you were in a cabal or tag team. I said you were letting your friendship with KC cloud your judgment. I was asking you to talk to her in order to make sure she was safe and instead you said there was no problem. I used the wikistalk to show that you were spending far too much time merely agreeing with her instead of looking at what some of the others were saying about her at the time. You have a rather blatant friendship with KC. Did I say it crossed the line? No, but it was about someone complaining about her and I wanted you to try and help her realize what the complaint was about before it got out of hand. Instead, you called me an idiot. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. You were accusing me of taking KC's side in something, when I made it explicitly clear that I had read the entire discussion and made up my mind from what I read. You then tried to "prove" to me that I was in fact just allowing myself to be her meatpuppet. I assured you that I had made up my mind according to my impressions. You then tried to tell me that the "facts" (with your TS gizmo) clearly showed that I was a meatpuppet, and I replied that you are an idiot (since you were, in essence, trying to convince me that the black pot in my kitchen (which you had never laid eyes upon) was in fact purple).

As for my "blatant friendship with KC", (a) we talked a lot back then because we were co-monitoring the Sarah Palin article (and disagreeing as often as not), and (b) what about it? You remind me of those wackos in the reality shows who proudly proclaim that "I'm not here to make friends!", as if being gregarious and friendly was some horrid sin. Honestly Ottava, I think this wikicup thing hasn't been good for you. Wikipedia is not for deciding who gets to stay on the island. (And for those who think I'm a dope about reality shows, I am... really: I've never watched one for more than 5 minutes before flicking back to the Science Channel. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't throw terms around as if I said any of that. I clearly stated over and over that your emotions were affected and that you were not looking objectively. After all, you proceeded to defend yourself by assuming I accused you of having an affair with her. That has nothing to do with meat puppetry as your own reaction suggests. Instead, it was about emotional bias. There is a very big difference and this all goes back to events at Wikiversity. Regardless, I too have acted to protect KC based on emotions and not objectivity, so it was not like I was approaching the subject as someone trying to harm either of you two. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An affair with her???? Wow. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the word that you claimed I was accusing you of. However, I made it clear over and over that I was not. I tried to explain that there was a jump between me pointing out that your judgment was clouded because of an emotional attachment to a friend and having intimate relations with another person. However, your opinion on my intelligence was made rather blatant by you at the time so I doubt it would have mattered. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, ["affair"] is the word that you claimed I was accusing you of." Ottava, I cannot find the word "affair" on this talk page before you yourself introduced it, and I cannot find it in your relevant talk page archive (#19). I suspect that you are misremembering something that happened in July or misunderstood something that SB Johnny just said on this page. If neither is the case, please provide a diff. Hans Adler 00:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I might have said that on IRC, sarcastically. If he really thought I was being serious, well, uh...

(My wife and I had a good laugh about this earlier, of course). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you were being serious or not, as the attack on my intelligence ended the discussion and stopped all further communication between us. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously need to lighten up. Really! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This really isnt going anywhere so can we just drop it and move on. Thanks. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 09:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still wondering about the question though: is this the sort of thing that is supposed to go in "evidence"? Like I said, I don't know much about how these things work. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 09:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why this cannot be posted on the evidence page. It seems to be along the lines of the current scope of the case. You can do it or I can do it so long as you can sign after verifying they are your words. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 22:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll put in in later today or over the weekend. My thoughts are a bit better gathered by now as well (losing brain cells to the constant roar of the leaf blowers this week). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have diffs relevant to my statement at Evidence presented by Abecedare, please list them here, and I'll add them to the Evidence page. Kindly avoid any additional discussion, and let the evidence speak for itself. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this?

ArbCom and WMF have my personal information and credentials.

The key word here is "credentials", since this is in response to my doubting his qualifications. It sounds to me as if he had sent copies of his degree certificates to Arbcom or WMF. Hans Adler 22:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton did it for me while he was on a public outing campaign. He also posted them at Wikipedia Review and other places. This was a well known event, especially since everyone with an email connected to the WMF was on a long mailing list string in which Moulton was constantly providing my personal information. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hans. Can we just list the diffs here, without any further comments or defense? Lets trust the Arbcom members to weigh the evidence, and Ottava's response on the evidence and workshop pages. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? ...and have a FAC closed before there is even a chance to find out if they really had a problem with anything or if it was just some minor point? And Sandy, there are a lot of people that accuse her (≈Karanacs) of being "close happy". Bishonen | talk 00:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. Added the "lots of people" statement. Abecedare (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

with a Steward handling it (and also agreeing that the page shouldn't be removed) – I do think I was misquoted there (from this case) Hans Adler 06:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added. It gets a bit complicated with all the chained allusions to previous conversations and disputes, so I have tried to lay the context (as I understand it) in short. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They keep coming in. [3] Hans Adler 08:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't see anything controversial in that statement; don't we all consult with "all levels of users" constantly on wikipedia ? Granted it's a non sequitur/straw man, but as far as those go it's really hard to top this and this, and I'm too lazy to start a new evidence section. Abecedare (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I must have been a bit sleepy when I added this one. Probably misread something. Sorry. ~~

Note that Ottava has responded to my evidence on my talk page [4] . I do not intend to engage with him there, as I disapprove of having the same discussion going on in multiple places, and would recommend that he repost here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again. [5]. As before, if he wishes to contest my evidence, he should do it here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is true that in this case his position concerning romance/romantic epic wasn't wrong. It's of course absolutely necessary to distinguish between (medieval) romance literature and (18th century) romantic literature. Unfortunately standard terminology is a bit dated and doesn't respect this nice romance/romantic distinction, and almost everybody continues to call an epic that is romance literature a romantic epic. The term "romance epic" is practically non-existent, only used by pedants and perhaps a few scholars whose native language handles this differently. But in the lead brevity, clarity and precision are important, and we are not constrained by WP:TITLE to use the most standard term. In such a situation it's not at all wrong to combine "it's a romance, and it's an epic too" into "it's a romance epic", even though that kind of thing is usually called a romantic epic.

So this example is not as clear as you present it. In this case the problem is not what Ottava proposes, but only the way he does so. His statements that you cannot use "romantic epic" are not descriptive of common practice, they are a reasonable prescriptive minority position. Hans Adler 16:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I on this basis revise "Italian language" to describe it not as "a Romance language..." but as "a Romantic language spoken by about 60 million people in Italy, and by a total of around 70 million in the world"? (Pray recall that Wiki autocaps first words of articles, and that capitalization has had an irregular history overall.) Cf. romance/romantic. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No: The standard expression "Romance language" is less ambiguous than the highly unusual combination "Romantic language". Therefore we have no justification for an eccentric lexical choice. Hans Adler 00:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC) PS: I was going to stop contributing to this discussion. Now I have taken the bait. I will try not to do this again. If you want to continue, please come to my talk page.[reply]

I merely pointed out to Elen that even Geogre agreed with me on the issue, which makes the characterization incorrect. I have already provided this evidence in my section, so Elen's would be contesting of my portrayal of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) think the most significant thing is that the major translation describes it as romantic, which Ottava seemed unaware of at the time. I certainly do not wish to accuse Ottava of errors where he is genuinely representing a minority view (I understand that there is a minority but acceptable view) but his posts came over to me as not knowing that the word could be used in this way, rather than not agreeing that it should be used in this way, and hauling the dispute to fringe seems to indicate that he did not know that the majority view disagreed with him. Ottava, if what you were saying is that you knew both forms were used but felt that the mainstream/most recent view was with you, rather than (as your words appear to me) that you believed 'romantic' could in no circumstances be applied here, then I'll have another look at what I wrote. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through that entire thread you sent me the link to, and (a) it's after the fact and (b) you STILL sound like you think no-one ever uses romantic to describe Arioso unless they have made an error. Geogre ends up agreeing with dab, and you're still madly trying to argue that Reynolds isn't a 'real' scholar. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 major translation calls it a "Romantic Epic". It was pointed out that the translator was not a specialist in genre classification or on epic as a genre. However, works were provided by experts in genre classification that specialize in epics. And I've read the translation. I wasn't "unaware" of it. I responded on the talk page about it. As pointed out over and over, someone simply knowing Italian or generalized understanding of Italian poetry is far different than those who study the various components of epic. The point of the discussion was that "Romance Epic" was equally suitable and does not confuse people with 18th/19th century epics of the Romantic poets. Folantin and others were not willing to accept the compromise even though Geogre said it was necessary to reduce confusion. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going through all this again. It's all there on the talk page, the Fringe Theories Noticeboard thread and the Content Noticeboard thread. A dozen editors disagreed with you. Many, many scholars have called Orlando "a romantic epic", including Professor Peter Marinelli in The Cambridge History of Italian Literature. It is probably the most common term used to refer to OF. --Folantin (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 dozen editors can disagree, but as long as WP:V and WP:RS exists, mere democratic opining does not override needing to attribute classifications to reliable sources. Even Dab admitted to Geogre that he had no problem with "Romance epic" being used, so I don't know where the "dozens" of editors exist. You consistently tout those two individuals when I have provided over 10 experts in epic as a genre. Why do you think your two people override the 10? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that categorises it for me. Ottava, I'm sorry, but what you've said now is such a contradiction of what you said then that I'm sticking to my original premise. I believe you thought that only one term could be used, and that the other term only referred to something else. I accept that if you say you've read Reynolds, you've read her, but I can only conclude that you thought she'd made a mistake (or her publisher, or editor had made a mistake, or the printer, or you never noticed it at the time, or whatever). If you want to refute my interpretation, you should ensure it is in your own evidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"a contradiction of what you said then" I would think I would know what I said then more than you do, especially since I've been discussing it for a few weeks now and it was brought up again at the content noticeboard with Folantin making it clear that no compromise was acceptable. "I believe you thought that only one term could be used" actually, I stated that "Christian epic" was the appropriate term. Folantin claimed that "Romantic epic" is the only acceptable term. I pointed out that genre critics use "Romance epic" because "Romantic epic" applies to works by Keats, Wordsworth, etc. This is brought up multiple times with links to the use regarding the Romantic poets. And I don't care what Reynolds labels the work. She can label it whatever she wants. That does not mean she is a reliable source or credible. Even if she was, Fringe would apply to show that she was in the minority view. I have already provided enough evidence to show that the idea was already refuted. When there was a very suitable option to distinguish between the two groups and one set of users refuses to accept it, then that is a problem. It shows an unwillingness to compromise, which is reinforced by the fact that the compromise was based on many, many reliable sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still can't distinguish between lower and upper case "romantic/Romantic." --Folantin (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither can Wiki, as Romantic epic and romantic epic would link to the same page that cannot be created because of concerns regarding your activities and your unwillingness to allow there to be a difference in the terminology. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And since Wikipedia would capitalize both anyway, ai de mi! May I suggest, as a compromise surely acceptable to all, Middle Telugu Epic, that common ground between Beowulf and Orlando Furioso which Dbachmann and Kalarimaster together could undoubtedly help us find? Molti bei fiorellini per tutti! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ROFLMAO - although perhaps better to stop there :)Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Ottava's contention was that it was "fringe" to call Orlando furioso a "romantic epic". It is not. He claimed "Its not 'romantic' except by amateurs" [6]. When I pointed out that, for instance, a Lecturer in Italian at Cambridge University had called it a "romantic epic" he replied "you are in denial about actual scholarship, relying on two bit hack writers" because "anyone can be a lecturer at Cambridge" [7]. Again, "No 'authorities' use romantic epic. 'romantic' is not an adjective of romance" and "If you are unwilling to listen, then fine. That will just sow that you are not here for the best of this project." [8]

He took the issue to Fringe Theories Noticeboard [9] where nobody agreed that it was "fringe" to call Orlando furioso a "romantic epic". Thus began his titanic grudge against anyone who had commented there, including Itsmejudith, Akhilleus and Dbachmann. In fact, Akhilleus had tried to resolve the issue by suggesting we should just call it an "epic" [10]. Dbachmann wrote: "We have references calling it a "romantic epic" and references calling it a "romance epic". The two terms in this context are exactly synonymous, and it is a matter open to discussion which we should prefer" [11] and invited Ottava to change the wording to "romance epic" if he so wished. Ottava refused. Dbachmann responded: "wth, is there any point to this any more? You have been invited to change 'romantic epic poem' to 'romance epic poem' in the lead. You haven't done so. Are you here to improve articles, or just for a chat?...If you want to do the 'romance' edit, go ahead. If you don't, just drop it" [12]. Ottava still refused to change "romantic" to "romance" and began to argue that Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur was a work of "Renaissance poetry". At which point the debate had entered the realms of the surreal and Dbachmann and I bailed out. --Folantin (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not concerning matters of civility, but of plain fact. While the mere title "Lord Byron" or even "Byron" may be used for a brief mention in passing (when there is no doubt to whom we are referring), his "common name" — as in his author listing in books of poetry — is his full name, thus something on the order of "George Gordon, Lord Byron", "George Gordon Noël Byron Byron (6th Baron)", etc. This makes the "common name" policy point to something like in fact the present "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron". So Ottava Rima was quite correct to make a strong objection against moving to the ambiguous and unsuitable "Lord Byron", which if not a redirect should be a disambiguation page. Some exasperation on his part is understandable. This shouldn't have needed arguing. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly prefer Geogre Gordon Byron, just like I prefer Alfred Tennyson, and the rest. The only reason why I support the full name is 1. per LoC classification and 2. per very, very old naming conventions. There is a similar dispute at Talk:Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson with many people involved in this case opining over there. I am afraid people want to change long standing conventions via the individual talk pages instead of getting consensus to rewrite the conventions. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that it's a good idea to continue this old discussion here, but WP:COMMONNAME has the example "Bill Clinton (not 'William Jefferson Clinton')" and no special rules for authors that I can see. Any argument that simply assumes otherwise and doesn't address this apparent contradiction is defective because it has no chance to convince your opponent. And we here at Wikipedia argue to convince, not to win. Hans Adler 18:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The major flaw with "commonname" is that Bill Clinton is not his "commonname", "President Clinton" was. Last names are "used" more often than first and last, which would imply that all articles would be named after last names. Because of this silliness, we have specific naming standards for specific groups. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. With this information I was able to look for, and find, WP:Naming conventions (people). I wasn't aware of it. Now I found "'King', 'Queen', 'Blessed', 'Mother', 'Father', 'Doctor', 'Mister', or any other type of qualifier is generally avoided as first word for a page name of a page on a single person, unless for disambiguation or redirect purposes." in WP:NCP#Qualifiers not between brackets, and this seems to decide the question in your favour. On the other hand, the same section mentions Mother Theresa and Father Damien as exceptions, and we are left wondering if the similar Lord Byron should be another exception.

The strange thing is that Talk:George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron#Requested move is a huge discussion with apparently not a single explicit reference to WP:NCP. While it would not have decided the issue altogether, a discussion in the light of WP:NCP#Qualifiers not between brackets would surely have raised the issue to a higher level, and perhaps everybody could have agreed that it's a borderline case with no easy answer. Hans Adler 18:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem, Hans: the page Baron Byron exists; it is about the title, not a single holder of it. Arguably Lord Byron should redirect there instead. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Adler - the reason why NCP is not mentioned is because British peerage is used in its place. The peerage standards have existed for a very long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(That seems a useful enough section, I took the liberty of creating a shortcut to it, and applying it in your text. I hope you'll forgive my meddling this time.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the parallel to "Lord Byron" or "Byron" here would be not "Bill Clinton" but simply "Clinton" (or simply "Bill") — a short reference that might be used for a brief mention in passing (when there is no doubt to whom we are referring), but would be utterly unacceptable in any broader context due to ambiguity: might we mean Hillary Clinton instead? or Bill Proxmire? We can say "Prince of Wales" as long as there's no doubt of which one we mean — the present one, or Victoria's son, or George III's — otherwise we need more specificity. Likewise "Lord Byron", because the title did not expire with the man; there's a living holder, who rightfully has better claim than any man long dead, however notable he was in his day. Otherwise, are we now going to challenge Prince Charles's claim to "Prince of Wales" in favor of, say, the Regent? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not the place for this argument. The issue is not with the move dispute, but the tone taken in the debate. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation is about the application of our guidelines. Many of the arguments that were opposed were based on ignoring certain guidelines to promote other ideas. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence concerns the tone taken in the debate. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tone, in text, is impossible to determine. However, objectively comparing arguments vs our standards, and using that evidence to determine if people are pushing unconstructive statements against our standards is easier. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tone in text is not dependent on hearing - something I know you are aware of, so there is little to gain by naysaying. The tone of [13] is perfectly distinguishable in the text. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Silent and faceless words on talk pages and in edit summaries do not transmit fully the nuances of verbal conversation, sometimes leading to misinterpretation of an editor's comments." WP:CIVIL. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)While I'm still trying to make sense of Many of the arguments that were opposed were based on ignoring certain guidelines to promote other ideas, I would like to point out that the merits of the Byron incident are not important here. Rather, it was the assumption of bad faith and the accusations of 'gaming', 'lying', 'tendentious editing' etc. that is the issue. The Byron case is actually quite illustrative because it is possible to construct reasonable arguments for any of the titles mentioned on the talk page and one would hope that, in a community based forum such as this one, a debate on which one to choose would be conducted in a spirit of cordiality. This complete inability to conduct himself in a reasonable fashion is what makes me think that, in choosing a collaborative encyclopedia as a vehicle for gaining self-respect, Ottava rima has simply made a grievous error of judgement.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People can lie, disrupt, etc, for good reasons, so "assumption of bad faith" has no application here. Any claims of lying or disrupting were directly proven with evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I do believe that you're making a poor career choice by focusing your energies on working in a collaborative environment, I must say your chutzpah is, in a peculiar way, quite delightful! :) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, Regents, you always know how to find a way to make me laugh in every discussion, while intentionally or not. :P My environment is more collaboration during competition than full collaboration. However, I don't know of any industry or subject that doesn't have significant competition. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, [14] might help. Tone analysis is on page 2. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two different meanings of the word "tone". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there is an obvious need for a reality check here: whatever the page is named, people using the encyclopedia need only to have the proper redirect and/or disambiguation page. The issue here isn't about who was right or wrong, but how Ottava treated the people he disagreed with.

Of all the places that might be about settling a content dispute, I would imagine ArbCom would be off the list. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, and I apologise for my participation in two such disputes here. Hans Adler 22:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SB Johnny - proper application of guidelines is part of behavior. No one is saying that ArbCom should make any declaration about what the page should be. It is only behavior against behavior. After all, misleading statements, emphasis of incorrect policy, etc, are aspects of behavior. It takes two people to dispute, and if one side is constantly using references and aspects within our policy and the other side is not, then that matters significantly. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Now if only we could all agree about which side is which, we might be able to terminate this case as resolved. Hans Adler 01:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This just seems to be part of Wikipedia's typical obsession with "aristo-cruft". Auden wrote Letter to Lord Byron not Letter to George Gordon Byron (6th Baron Byron). Everyone knows the primary meaning of "Lord Byron" is the poet. Likewise, "Alfred, Lord Tennyson" is by far the most common version of his name, otherwise we wouldn't have Joyce's pun on "Alfred Lawn Tennison". But I have no plans to get involved in these disputes. As soon as the subject of an article has blue blood, many Wikipedians seem to lose their heads. --Folantin (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that theory, Bill Clinton should be a redirect to President Clinton since most people used that in their titles. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Clinton is usually known as Bill Clinton; Byron as Byron or Lord Byron; Tennyson as Alfred, Lord Tennyson.--Folantin (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, my dear Folantin, is that every Baron Byron is Lord Byron, duly, properly, and by exclusive legal right — during his maintenance of the title — not just "usually". In this respect, Auden's poem is, so to speak, one of the boyz 'n da poetic 'hood vouching for another. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute, and although it may have some relevane to previous disputes, arbcom is not the arena to discuss such things nor is it directly applicable to this case. This is simply a distraction from the rest of the case.

SizzleFlambe, could you please remove from your evidence parts which are unrelated to the conduct of Ottava Rima, Jehochman or any other involved party in line with what I have said. Many thanks. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 21:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seddon, quite seriously, in my view what I have posted as evidence is all directly related to the conduct of involved parties, and I have added some clarification to that point. May I express the hope that ArbCom does not accept "evidence" consisting of sheer speculation about others' mental processing — that is, amateur mindreading and remote-psychoanalysis, such as I see there? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether your position on the appropriate name for an article on Lord Byron is correct or not, content and conduct are inherently different things. Being right or wrong about content is not inherently a conduct issue. Unless you believe that Lt. Powers, RegentsPark, and others involved in that naming dispute were deliberately targeting Ottava, perhaps as a part of some cabal, I'm not sure why you're dragging a content matter into a discussion on conduct. If you do believe that is the case, you should say so clearly and support your assertion with diffs. Otherwise, you might want to consider Seddon's suggestion above. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark, I did say so clearly on the evidence page:

Relevance of fact vs conduct: Take for instance LtPowers's complaint that Ottava Rima tried to "suppress dissent", keeping in mind the above facts about the title "Lord Byron":

Right from the get-go, we see a simple negation of my claim that "Lord Byron" is the common name.... He then caps it with the simple claim that I am wrong -- and not just wrong, but "blatantly wrong", as if I should have known better than to even bring up the suggestion. ... In other words, Ottava is right and I am wrong -- so wrong that I can't even justify my position.

But in fact, Ottava was right and LtPowers was wrong; "Lord Byron" is not the poet's name but a title he once held, as 11 other dead men also once held it, and one living man holds it now. Ottava Rima bluntly corrected an elementary error, like 2+2=5. If there are still people clinging to the false notion that "Lord Byron" is the poet's name, and denouncing those who are so "uncivil" and "suppressive" as to puncture that balloon, it is not ArbCom's place to protect their fantasies from criticism.

"Being right or wrong about content is not inherently a conduct issue," you say now. But LtPowers's claim that Ottava Rima "suppresses dissent" implies he's keeping valid views from being expressed in order to impose his own invalid views — not only uncivil but dictatorial conduct! When in fact all that happened was a flat falsehood getting flatly contradicted. Quite a difference in conduct, when you look at it that way. So I suppose some people might not want it looked at that way. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what all this is evidence for and a clear single sentence statement of what the evidence shows might help. From what I can see, it is evidence mostly for 'SizzleFlambe believes that Lord Byron is not a reasonable title for the article on Lord Byron'. Which, of course, is fine but is not particularly pertinent to the matter at hand. It could also be evidence for "Ottava rima's conduct in the Byron dispute is not important because Sizzle Flambe strongly believes that Ottava rima's position on content was correct". If you believe that your 'evidence' is appropriate, you might want to consider clearly stating the proposition that it is supporting. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 04:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A flat falsehood? Because I used the word "name" instead of "title"? You do know that the word "name" has multiple meanings, right? That it can refer to both a person's legal name as well as the phrase which other people use to refer to a particular subject, right? Powers ^T 14:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk Note Do not continue this thread. Discussion of content is not applicable at arbitration. Giving examples via diffs of behaiviour in a dispute is fair but discussion of the content itself or stating a viewpoint about content in a dispute is a distraction and does not belong at arbitration.

Sizzle flambe, in line with what i have just said please remove from your evidence specific dicussion about the content itself. Refer to the dispute, link to parts in the dispute but stating a viewpoint on a side of a content dispute is not what arbitration is about. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 17:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seddon, once Sizzle Flambé has removed the inappropriate material, my last subsection will also become inappropriate, and you are invited to nuke it in case I'm a bit slow to do so. Hans Adler 18:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seddon — will that refactoring suffice? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the answer is "yes". [15] (Thanks, Seddon.) Hans Adler 06:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where to put this, so I'll add it here. Jbmurray speaks fluent Spanish, I speak fluent Spanish; basta means, plainly and simply, enough. There is no other slang meaning in Spanish that I'm aware of. I also lived in Italy; although my Italian is not fluent, to my knowledge, the use of the word is the same as in Spanish.[16] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe wiktionary, "basta" is used in Swedish, too! --Akhilleus (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It just means "enough" in Italian. My mother is Italian; I grew up hearing this all the time when my brother and I were arguing, or if one of us was whining excessively. My mother is not one to swear at small children, in any language. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OED lists "Enough! no more! no matter!" as the only meaning of Basta in English (though it's marked as obsolete) and provides quotes from Shakespeare (The Taming of the Shrew), Richard Brome (The Court Beggar) and Walter Scott (Ivanhoe). FWIW, bas! in Hindi (an Indo-European language) is an interjection for "That's enough". Certainly not a recent slang. (I am placing my comment in the middle of the "conversation" since my only interest is linguistic; and not OR's error or subsequent disputes.) Abecedare (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why a mistake from April 2008 that was resolved then still comes up? Oh wait, I know why. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Basta with the basta already! It's really rather silly at best, petty at worst. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the post above is the first time Ottava has acknowledged that he was mistaken about "basta." Quite recently he was saying something different. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basta is not a common word in English, thus, to use it in an English sentence is slang. Look at the urban dictionary for "ya basta" where you can see that it is slang for enough when used in English. The urban dictionary states that it is used by modern Spanish speakers when speaking English, but I assume that the Italians would easily use it in the same way. Since Jbmurray speaks Spanish, we can feel safe with the Urban dictionary showing that there is a common slang use of the Spanish term in the English language. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Akhilleus, I don't bring it up myself. It is inappropriate to bring it up. Do I go through your beginning contributions and pull out mistakes and constantly taunt you about them? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you just accuse me of meatpuppetry and conspiracies to destroy Wikipedia. I'd rather be criticized for misunderstanding slang words, really. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you responded here in this thread on this topic, which you are not involved, is evidence of meat puppetry. Do I really have to list you up for a topic ban too before you get this? You have to understand how it looks. You crossed the line months ago, and you keep acting as if what you are doing is acceptable within our policies. That is almost unimaginable. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, you might want to strike that unwarranted accusation above, per WP:NPA. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted? Nope. Ludovico Ariosto, Persian Empire, Oscar Wilde, multiple ANI pages, and multiple talk pages, all saying the same thing as the same group of people said over and over and over. He is now carrying the "basta" fight, which he was -never- involved in before. Those are the actions that meet the very definition of meat puppetry. Now, you can strike your inappropriate claim of NPA, because NPA says that inappropriate accusations of personal attacks are a personal attack. I have already provided evidence verifying my statement and even Black Kite recognized that I had a legitimate concern and could make the claims. You, however, have not. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yow. Ottava, this is exactly the sort of thing that's landed you in the doghouse. People can and often do agree with one another without necessarily agreeing to do so beforehand. Lots of people are watching this page, most if not all of them have opinions, and they are perfectly within their rights to voice them. Continuing to do this (here of all fora!) only serves to justify firmer sanctions against you. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag teaming does not require direct communication to do it, as simply following another is enough. There is no other reason why Akhilleus appears in all of these content disputes with the same group of people - Ludovico Ariosto, Persian Empire, and Oscar Wilde do not have a common connection except through myself. Wikipedia:Tag Team - "Working together to circumvent the three revert rule" Persian Empire edit warring showed this. "Consensus-blocking, continually challenging outside opinions, and acting as if they own an article." Persian Empire definitely showed this, as did the other two. "When discussion is attempted, tag team members will often respond with circular argumentation and a continual ignoring of points made by those they oppose." - Definitely had this happen in all of them. "Even if voices from the wider community come in to show a differing community consensus, tag-teamers may refuse to "let the matter drop" at article talkpages." Three straw polls and two RfCs and they still edit warred to blank the page out of existence even though consensus said no. "Reluctance to work towards compromise, or to follow Wikipedia dispute resolution processes." Definitely happened. "Meatpuppetry. Tag team members will often write affirmations of support for other tag team members in order to make it appear that a community consensus exists." Yep. "Harassment and intimidation tactics." And this one is definitely consistent, with the same harassing comments being stated by Folantin and others being picked up and used by Akhilleus on multiple talk pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilleus, you forgot the second rule of Ottava - if you're not involved, you're not allowed to comment. (First rule of Ottava - if you're involved, you're not allowed to comment). Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful, Elen. Powers ^T 16:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's enough. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ both of you - I might say it in a humorous way, but I'm serious.[17]. While Ottava has frequently argued that persons who are 'involved' should not take any further part in diccussions with him (and this is all in the evidence), he has in the course of this case begun to argue that persons with whom he was not previously involved (ie argued with) must have some sinister manifesto for engaging with him. Hence the accusations to Akhilleus, and the diff'd statement to me. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point about the "basta" incident is that it clearly illustrates the basic dilemma we have with Ottava: either he was ignorant and he genuinely didn't know basic Italian; or he did know Italian but was disingenuously trying to win his argument with Jbmurray by making it look as though he had been uncivil and had called Ottava a "bastard". In other words, we have a choice between incompetence and malice. --Folantin (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dilemma of having something not related to you from April 2008? Normally, people refer to such obsessions as stalking. WP:HARASS directly prohibits such a mentality that you are expressing above. PS, Jbmurray speaks Spanish and was using a Spanish expression (as SandyGeorgia points out above). However, everyone can rest assured that I wont be bringing up Folantin's mistake for the next year. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there's no problem in continually harping on the dispute at Ludovico Ariosto, from December 2008. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't go to various talk pages or the rest and say "oh, Folantin claimed that a translator was more reliable than 8 experts" in every off topic conversation I can. However, I do point out how Folantin, Moreschi, Dbachmann, yourself, and others involved consistently appear and consistently make the same claims. You are consistently making statements about Reynolds and "basta", two different talking points, yet equally shared. The DNC isn't able to get its people to tow the party line as well as what is appearing as of late. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I don't think I've said anything about this "basta" stuff until today. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As well as everyone else. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I raised this issue here just to let the arbs know-- from someone whose "slang" is probably better than my formal Spanish-- that there is no hidden slang meaning to the word basta. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[18] Its use in English is slang. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hey, Ottava, if you want to be ultra-pedantic, the Spanish is ¡basta! rather than basta! (Italian), but it's an equally common word meaning the same thing as the Italian, i.e. "enough" not "bastard". Akhilleus will be pleased to note that Ottava has finally changed "romantic epic" to his preferred "romance epic" only 11 months after he was invited to do so by members of the evil "cabal" against him. --Folantin (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jbmurray speaks Spanish. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Two things:

1. Denying one's errors when one is aware of them is antisocial. It's a normal reaction by others to bring it up constantly. They simply expect you to finally do the only decent thing and admit them. (We all have to live with the sad fact that we aren fallible. Nobody likes those who try to keep up the illusion they are not.)
2. There are contexts in which bringing your "basta" blunder up is completely appropriate, e.g.: (a) When you try to give the impression that you have read Orlando Furioso in Italian. (b) When you disparage a scholar who is actually able to read the original. (c) In discussions about your character (provided the discussions themselves are appropriate, such as this case), because it's one of the best clues we have.

Hans Adler 17:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It's a normal reaction by others to bring it up constantly" this is the definition of taunting. Taunting is explicitly prohibited in our policies. It is not acceptable to consistently harp on the past and use off topic errors as reasons to ignore consensus based discussions or to disrupt them. This would also be a WP:POINT violation. And yes, I have read the damn thing in Italian and if any Arbitrator wants proof, I can forward them my transcript and they can see the classes that dealt with it. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One way to end them is to simply acknowledge when you were wrong, so everyone can move on. If you don't start doing this, you are giving the arbs all the reason they need to rule differently in this case than they did in the Mattisse case; she often acknowledged her mistakes, even if she sometimes repeated them, which is probably why the arbs were encouraged to offer mentorship. You are taking none of the lifelines offered to you by many participants in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone moved on in April 2008. I proposed this because people are acting highly inappropriately. I find your continuation of this highly inappropriate Sandy, as well as everyone else. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that we have finally pierced through your cloak of infallibility. In my opinion this is an excellent point for ending this discussion. Otherwise we will only give you an excuse for not learning from the experience. Hans Adler 17:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"your cloak of infallibility" - [19] "You expect me to account for opinions which you choose to call mine, but which I have never acknowledged." Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Basta" in Spanish (and, I learn, Italian) means "enough." There's nothing slang about it. In English, I guess it's a loanword. In any case, I hadn't thought it was particularly recherché (see, there's another, and that's not slang either). I was very puzzled when Ottava insisted that it was some kind of swearword. I agree with SandyGeorgia that admitting your mistakes--or the possibility you may have made a mistake--a little more quickly and more gracefully would absolutely be to your advantage. And also, as I have said before, that it would behoove you to take some of the many lifelines you have been offered. Enough with the intransigence! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, consistently pointing out minor mistakes is far, far worse than me not "apologizing" for being "human" and seeing something that I was more familiar with (the urban dictionary has basta'd and other forms as short for bastard, and in Baltimore consonants are dropped rather consistently - Balmer, Blair, Cow, etc, for many of the surrounding locations). I stated what I believed, you stated what you intended. There was no more dispute after that. Consistently trying to beat someone over the head for a perception is inappropriate, and the fact that this happened back in April 2008 and is being discussed is highly offensive. Would you like for me to dig through your talk page and find mistakes that you haven't "apologized" for? And by the way, when I actually do do something that is worth apologizing over, I do apologize. However, I don't make a big show about it nor is a showy apology an actual apology. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, you are welcome to trawl my contributions for errors. There are undoubtedly plenty of them, including some for which I failed to apologize properly. All I will say is that such a trawl will hardly help you, not least because it would be rather ungraceful on your part, undermining the effect of any apology that you might be offering. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Clerk note: The scope of this case is the conduct of Ottava Rima, to the exclusion of all else. If Akhilleus would like to request that Ottava apologise to him for past wrongs, then he should pursue that goal outside of this arbitration case. If Akhilleus would like to ensure that the claims of meat-puppetry (the merits of which I make no comment about) are taken into account in the final decision, then he should submit evidence by the appropriate channels. I am sorry to stifle interaction, but we really must keep all discourse relevant to the case. Thank you. AGK 00:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just received an e-mail from OR which indicated that he may be leaving the project. I note the comments he has added on his talk page seem to indicate much the same thing. I cannot believe that this is really in the best interests of the project. I am basically retiring for the night right now, (sleep being unavoidable for even me, I'm afraid) but will be contacting him in the morning, seeing what if anything has changed in the interim. I sincerely hope that whatever may have prompted this action is in some way resolved so that he can become an active editor again. John Carter (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]