Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions/Workshop

Questions

 * 1) Who are the parties?
 * 2) What kind of motions can be brought up?
 * 3) What kind of requests can be brought up?
 * 4) What about questions to people a party?

- Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 5. What does question 4 mean? Bishonen | talk 23:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC).
 * I think Ottava Rima has figured out how to make proposals and ask questions by this point, so I think this section is moot. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Train wreck
This new series of proposals is problematic, to say the least. Ottava Rima's calling for his perceived rivals to be blocked and banned probably won't win any support here. But filling the workshop page with baseless proposals will make it tougher to deal with the real part of the case if it spirals the discussion down to the level of accusations and counter-accusations. I'm wondering if Arbcom might see fit to enforce some order and decorum here so that we can stay on track. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Shrug. I think Ottava and reason just suffered a sudden and violent divorce. Certainly, however, there is no need to for anyone to actually respond to his proposals. Moreschi (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It wants removing - we really have entered the realm of fantasy here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Might as well leave them there. Not worth responding to, but it certainly demonstrates to the arbs the ingrained nature of the problem. Moreschi (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just got home from work, and ... read these. Just.  Wow.  Antandrus  (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Okay, no disruption has happened yet, and it won't if people ignore it. Just being proactive here I guess.   I hope people don't take the bait, and ArbCom can keep things in order.  - Wikidemon (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ideally, arbs/clerks will do something about this, very quickly, somehow. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think it's better to leave it there neglected. I think the arbs should factor it into their thinking, but the rest of us should just leave it alone. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. I think they should be struck, and Ottava should be censured for being intentionally inflammatory. He's smart enough to know what the reaction to that garbage will be. Jtrainor (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I once thought he was roleplaying or something, but by now I am 100% convinced that he he believes in good faith that many people agree with him (when they don't) and the others are simply wrong, and that the only reason things usually turn out against him is a conspiracy. These proposals need to stay in and need to be dealt with as correctly as possible. Otherwise he can imagine that the other arbitrators who never got a chance to comment would have agreed with him. Hans Adler 06:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't believe these are game playing.  I think Ottava genuinely believes there will be substantial support for them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the last thing we need is yet another thing for Ottava to perceive as unfair. One of the most productive things this case can accomplish is to examine baseless accusations and reveal them as such. Removing them now will simply fuel the fires of imagined conspiracy. Chillum 15:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava's proposals
Never have I seen such a bunch of self-serving proposals since Jeffrey V. Merkey tried to give himself adminship. Daniel (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's uncalled for. It is natural for proposals to reflect the viewpoint of those making the proposal. Please consider striking your comments. Karanacs (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Karanacs (this is as impressive as the time you threatened Slp1, Daniel. I also suggest striking the unhelpful comment.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's very much called for. It serves to highlight that Ottava clearly cannot identify that there are issues with his own participation, which forms a large part of why this case has come to the fore in the first place. Sandy, you have absolutely no grounds to be agreeing with anyone when you then follow up your comment with some totally unnecessary remark which is irrelevant to this case. (PS: I was still right regarding Slp1, and plus I don't think I threatened him at all — quite the contrary. That obviously seems to irritate you, though, given you felt the need to bring it up here.) Daniel (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have discussed the issue with Daniel on IRC and I don't have a problem with his statement. I was quite amused when I read the actual proposals by Merkey. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The name-dropping of Merkey was intended to provide a light-hearted distraction, I confess. I'm glad to see you took it in the right spirit, unlike the individuals who decided to jump in unnecessarily above (do I sense a pattern developing there?). Daniel (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's agree to keep comments to a minimum
Is it too much to ask that the proposals be left to speak for themselves, however ridiculous some of us may find some of them? I, for one, trust the arbitrators to interpret the evidence and proposals in a fair and objective way; adding comments to refute every little (or even every big) point someone else makes only inflames tempers on both sides. Powers T 14:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We should be just about wrapped with non-Arb proposals here. When the Arbs weigh in, hopefully there won't be as much of a bear pit.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Parties inevitably write proposals that favor their "side," but these proposals will sink or swim on their own merits. The drafting arbitrator usually does a very good job of sorting wheat from chaff. Cool Hand Luke 19:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed decision has been posted
In case people are only watching this page and its talk page, I'm noting here that a proposed decision has been posted. Comments should go here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)