Ottava leaves Wikipedia Options

[Coffee]

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

[A Horse With No Name]

"I am gone. I don't know when I will be back..." -- Ottava

Pity he didn't say he was leaving on a jet plane -- it would've been a fitting tribute to the late Mary Travers. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[everyking]

I recommend a technical measure to ensure that he doesn't cut his vacation short.

[Anonymous editor]

I recommend a technical measure to ensure that he doesn't cut his vacation short.

I concur, especially after skimming this:

Malleus, chin up. Sandy, you always do a great job. Karanacs, thank God you are about to help Sandy. Moni3, you are cute, haha. Ironholds, you better fix the law pages. Juliancolton, you are a fool for ever thinking about dodging this place. Peter Symonds, I don't have anything to say to you cause you know everything (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif). Casliber, I finally passed you. Kim Bruning, I hate you but I love you. Durova, you are annoying but only because you tend to be right about stuff that isn't pleasant. Awadewit, cheers on finishing up your doctorate - I hope I beat you of course (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif). Raul, you are a decent fellow and hopefully there will be many pleasant caturdays. Coincidentally, Lara, you are amusing although cruel (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif). Giano, continue to produce some nice articles. YellowMonkey, I never knew there could be so many cricket articles haha, but you did it (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif). Ceranthor, don't stop working as everything you touch seems to be well. GaryKing, keep to the sources but not too close and there will be many more beautiful pages. Ed17, safe sailing! Ceoil, may your beer never go flat and your potato never get cold. Jake, don't let the complainers get you down. Dave souza, you sure know how to make a fine article on classical science. Lar, I hate you but you are still a decent fellow (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif). Mrathel, sorry if I don't get about to finish the article, but you have my contact info and I can always sent you copy and paste of the texts so I hope the Odes will get finished in some way, or I could come back if I can manage not to be as upset. NW, you are a fun person as with NocturneNoir, and it was nice meeting you two. iMatthew and Garden, the cup was fun and you two were great to talk to. Luna, I doubt you'll ever see this but I think you'd make a fine Arb if you ever ran. Jdelanoy, you would also make a great Arb. Cary Bass, you have to be the most amusing WMF person I've ever talked to, but I've only talked to four of them (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif). RyanPost, you have a good head on your shoulders. DGG, you always have an interesting viewpoint and I can always trust you to have something reasonable to say. Fritzpol, make sure to run for ArbCom sometime because you have a good sense of fairness. Casliber, I finally beat you (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif). Wizardman, keep up the work even if it is about baseball haha. Prodego, you are so rigid but it is endearing. Nancy, always keep the faith. John Carter, you always were a great guy.

[cyofee]

Let's start a betting pool about Ottava's date of return to Wikipedia.

My preliminary guess would be around two weeks from now.

[Somey]

Let's start a betting pool about Ottava's date of return to Wikipedia.

My preliminary guess would be around two weeks from now.

Hasn't he done this sort of thing before? Or am I confusing him with someone else?

If you can manage to get through the whole entry, you'll see that he doesn't say anything particularly nasty about anyone. That's unusual, and while it seems logical to assume it means he'll be back in more like two days, I'm not so sure. Ottava is extremely stubborn and uncompromising, so something like that could very well mean that he's going to make a real effort to beat the psychological withdrawal and get off the drug.

Baah, what am I saying? Four days.

[SB_Johnny]

Let's start a betting pool about Ottava's date of return to Wikipedia.

My preliminary guess would be around two weeks from now.

Considering that it looks like the Arbcom was actually going to accept the case this time, I predict his return will be a rough one. Not a good play at brinksmanship.

[Eva Destruction]

Let's start a betting pool about Ottava's date of return to Wikipedia.

My preliminary guess would be around two weeks from now.

Four days. The Arbcom elections start on 10 November, and I don't believe Ottava will let the chance pass to share his opinions. Upper limit of 21 days, assuming Malleus still runs for RFA on 27 Nov, since there's no way Ottava won't wade into that particular argument.

[Kelly Martin]

My money is on the theory that he's already returned under a new username.

[A Horse With No Name]

If you can manage to get through the whole entry, you'll see that he doesn't say anything particularly nasty about anyone.

I am surprised he didn't channel Terry Jacks and start singing "Goodbye to you, my trusted friend /we knew each other since we were nine or ten..." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

You will also notice that he talks to a good percentage of the same 150-200 people who inevitably migrate to RfA, RfArb, ANI, AfD or various talk pages and "projects" that set off our radars. For a project that supposedly encompasses 10.5 million registered users, it always seems fishy that the exact same people keep turning up over and over and over again in these discussions/farewells/smackdowns/non-vote !votes/trivia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

He will be back by this time next week. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Jon Awbrey]

For a project that supposedly encompasses 10.5 million registered users …

But of course, most of them are me.

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[EricBarbour]

Agreed--the Arbcom election is irresistible to him.

And supposedly he already has at least 20 socks set up. (A little birdy told me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) )

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Let's start a betting pool about Ottava's date of return to Wikipedia.

My preliminary guess would be around two weeks from now.

Hasn't he done this sort of thing before? Or am I confusing him with someone else?

If you can manage to get through the whole entry, you'll see that he doesn't say anything particularly nasty about anyone. That's unusual, and while it seems logical to assume it means he'll be back in more like two days, I'm not so sure. Ottava is extremely stubborn and uncompromising, so something like that could very well mean that he's going to make a real effort to beat the psychological withdrawal and get off the drug.

Baah, what am I saying? Four days.

If he ever did this before I don't remember it. Since August he's contributed 7 featured articles and nearly 30 good articles on scholarly topics. Fantastic content writer; here's wishing he were better with people. Let's give him a little breathing room.

[Jon Awbrey]

breathing room

Godwin strikes again …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Wiki Witch of the West]

breathing room

Godwin strikes again …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Just because you're such a sweet person, Jon, here's the midafternoon weather report. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Luv ya!

[SB_Johnny]

Just curious Durova: when did I become a steward?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=323931669

(And, uh, that was aimed at the people shooting the spitballs actually, more than at your buddy.)

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Just curious Durova: when did I become a steward?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=323931669

(And, uh, that was aimed at the people shooting the spitballs actually, more than at your buddy.)

Sometimes I go by memory, which can be faulty. Apologies if the recollection was faulty. Must've been too much blood in my caffeine system.

Thought you'd appreciate the visuals for "whiskey, tango, foxtrot". But on a more serious note the criticism is well intentioned and serious.

It's hard to relate unless you've ever found yourself at the eye of a gale force wikistorm. But really, there were expletives tossed around at that discussion that stand out like sore thumbs to the person who's in sharpest focus. In that sort of situation it is very tempting to point to the inconsistency--he's being grilled for incivility while people with a much more obvious level of incivility go without a polite reminder. One of the hardest things to do in that situation is to make a realistic assessment of one's own shortcomings. A quiet and calm response really is better.

This post has been edited by Wiki Witch of the West:

[Text]

If Ottava is a decent page maker he should just go to Wikipedia Review or Everything2, or something equivalent. No point in having your pages smashed by casual ip addresses, since the governors of the site have no interest in implementing better software.

[Coffee]

My money is on the theory that he's already returned under a new username.

Oooh me too... put me down for... 1,000 WikiDollars please! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

[everyking]

If he ever did this before I don't remember it. Since August he's contributed 7 featured articles and nearly 30 good articles on scholarly topics. Fantastic content writer; here's wishing he were better with people. Let's give him a little breathing room.

How persistent and severe would Ottava have to be in his attacks on other editors before his conduct would be deemed intolerable? Do you think it's possible that Ottava has been doing all that constructive editing because he realizes that he'd otherwise be quickly banned? If he was restricted in some way that prevented him from trolling, he'd probably lose interest in editing altogether, which may in fact be essentially what happened this time.

[Malleus]

If he ever did this before I don't remember it. Since August he's contributed 7 featured articles and nearly 30 good articles on scholarly topics. Fantastic content writer; here's wishing he were better with people. Let's give him a little breathing room.

How persistent and severe would Ottava have to be in his attacks on other editors before his conduct would be deemed intolerable? Do you think it's possible that Ottava has been doing all that constructive editing because he realizes that he'd otherwise be quickly banned? If he was restricted in some way that prevented him from trolling, he'd probably lose interest in editing altogether, which may in fact be essentially what happened this time.

How "persistent and severe" do your own attacks have to be before your conduct is deemed "intolerable"? Are you seriously proposing that anyone would work on 7 featured articles and 30 GAs just to avoid being banned?

You're way beyond crazy everyking.

[A Horse With No Name]

If Ottava is a decent page maker he should just go to Wikipedia Review or Everything2, or something equivalent. No point in having your pages smashed by casual ip addresses, since the governors of the site have no interest in implementing better software.

Or, even better, he can write for a professional media outlet. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

How "persistent and severe" do your own attacks have to be before your conduct is deemed "intolerable"? Are you seriously proposing that anyone would work on 7 featured articles and 30 GAs just to avoid being banned?

I've seen stranger behavior in the context of cults (Scientology, the Family, stuff like that). It's not incomprehensible.

[Viridae]

If he ever did this before I don't remember it. Since August he's contributed 7 featured articles and nearly 30 good articles on scholarly topics. Fantastic content writer; here's wishing he were better with people. Let's give him a little breathing room.

How persistent and severe would Ottava have to be in his attacks on other editors before his conduct would be deemed intolerable? Do you think it's possible that Ottava has been doing all that constructive editing because he realizes that he'd otherwise be quickly banned? If he was restricted in some way that prevented him from trolling, he'd probably lose interest in editing altogether, which may in fact be essentially what happened this time.

I think you are being way too cynical, I certainly wouldn't put the effort into contributing all that he does just so he can troll with impunity - of course, he might have realised he can be a troll as a side project in addition to the content which he seems to enjoy contributing. That said, I don't think he is particuarly trollish, just has a filthy temper and has discovered he can (up till now) make people back down by screaming harrasment. Frankly is you want to troll with impunity, either edit ED, go play on/b/ or become an admin, all of which are easier options that doing what he is doing.

[everyking]

I think you are being way too cynical, I certainly wouldn't put the effort into contributing all that he does just so he can troll with impunity - of course, he might have realised he can be a troll as a side project in addition to the content which he seems to enjoy contributing. That said, I don't think he is particuarly trollish, just has a filthy temper and has discovered he can (up till now) make people back down by screaming harrasment. Frankly is you want to troll with impunity, either edit ED, go play on/b/ or become an admin, all of which are easier options that doing what he is doing.

It's more likely that the constructive editing is the side project and the trolling is the main event. After all, when confronted with the imminent likelihood of sanctions that would limit his ability to troll, he chose to leave and not write articles anymore. Doesn't that speak volumes about his priorities? Also, considering that he's a religious fanatic, I don't think playing around with a bunch of vulgar children would have much troll appeal for him.

This post has been edited by everyking:

[GlassBeadGame]

I think you are being way too cynical, I certainly wouldn't put the effort into contributing all that he does just so he can troll with impunity - of course, he might have realised he can be a troll as a side project in addition to the content which he seems to enjoy contributing. That said, I don't think he is particuarly trollish, just has a filthy temper and has discovered he can (up till now) make people back down by screaming harrasment. Frankly is you want to troll with impunity, either edit ED, go play on/b/ or become an admin, all of which are easier options that doing what he is doing.

It's more likely that the constructive editing is the side project and the trolling is the main event. After all, when confronted with the imminent likelihood of sanctions that would limit his ability to troll, he chose to leave and not write articles anymore. Doesn't that speak volumes about his priorities?

But Everyking, his fingers pressed keys that the magic wiki spun into gold, so you miss him sorely, right?

[Malleus]

How "persistent and severe" do your own attacks have to be before your conduct is deemed "intolerable"? Are you seriously proposing that anyone would work on 7 featured articles and 30 GAs just to avoid being banned?

I've seen stranger behavior in the context of cults (Scientology, the Family, stuff like that). It's not incomprehensible.

It is to me.

[Kelly Martin]

How "persistent and severe" do your own attacks have to be before your conduct is deemed "intolerable"? Are you seriously proposing that anyone would work on 7 featured articles and 30 GAs just to avoid being banned?

I've seen stranger behavior in the context of cults (Scientology, the Family, stuff like that). It's not incomprehensible.

It is to me.

Perhaps you should change your name to Horatio, then.

[Malleus]

How "persistent and severe" do your own attacks have to be before your conduct is deemed "intolerable"? Are you seriously proposing that anyone would work on 7 featured articles and 30 GAs just to avoid being banned?

I've seen stranger behavior in the context of cults (Scientology, the Family, stuff like that). It's not incomprehensible.

It is to me.

Perhaps you should change your name to Horatio, then.

Perhaps. Oh, what I'd give to be omniscient like you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Tower]

Anyway to come back to topic, I see Ottava is back on WP now. Posting on Malleus's talk page. Even talking about us over here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Hmm

Hi Ottava. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

Anyway to come back to topic, I see Ottava is back on WP now. Posting on Malleus's talk page. Even talking about us over here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Hmm

Hi Ottava. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Daddy's home! Daddy's home! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Cedric]

Anyway to come back to topic, I see Ottava is back on WP now. Posting on Malleus's talk page. Even talking about us over here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Hmm

Hi Ottava. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Back?? He never even left.

Nothing more here than a lot of attention-whoring whining of a type we have seen hundreds of times before. Honestly, people! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

[SB_Johnny]

Anyway to come back to topic, I see Ottava is back on WP now. Posting on Malleus's talk page. Even talking about us over here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Hmm

Hi Ottava. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

I'm under the impression he's an avid WR reader... actually the wikibreak might have gone on a little longer if he was free to post here.

Back?? He never even left.

Nothing more here than a lot of attention-whoring whining of a type we have seen hundreds of times before. Honestly, people! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

Aw, c'mon now. He took over 36 hours off! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Casliber]

If Ottava is a decent page maker he should just go to Wikipedia Review or Everything2, or something equivalent. No point in having your pages smashed by casual ip addresses, since the governors of the site have no interest in implementing better software.

Writing Featured Articles is an antidote to that, as a consensus flagged-stable-revision-thingy, and was my prime motivation for writing Featured content in the first place (as an anchor once the articles start to erode like sandcastles at the beach...) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[everyking]

Since Ottava isn't really gone, the ArbCom should hurry up and accept the case and do something about him. Antandrus sums it up perfectly: "When not editing content, Ottava Rima is the single most disruptive, time-wasting, drama-creating, wikilawyering unsanctioned editor I have encountered in almost six years editing. Please accept this case to look closely at his conduct. There is no way to measure how much of the time of otherwise-productive Wikipedians he siphons off into his dramas."

[Eva Destruction]

Since Ottava isn't really gone, the ArbCom should hurry up and accept the case and do something about him. Antandrus sums it up perfectly: "When not editing content, Ottava Rima is the single most disruptive, time-wasting, drama-creating, wikilawyering unsanctioned editor I have encountered in almost six years editing. Please accept this case to look closely at his conduct. There is no way to measure how much of the time of otherwise-productive Wikipedians he siphons off into his dramas."

Case now open. An absolute humdinger of a piece of craziness, even by Wikipedia standards as the first post, too: "Please can Arbcom reject this case, because I think Ottava's crazy".

[everyking]

Case now open. An absolute humdinger of a piece of craziness, even by Wikipedia standards as the first post, too: "Please can Arbcom reject this case, because I think Ottava's crazy".

I remember admins used to say "Wiki is not therapy" when banning crazy people.

[Malleus]

Case now open. An absolute humdinger of a piece of craziness, even by Wikipedia standards as the first post, too: "Please can Arbcom reject this case, because I think Ottava's crazy".

I remember admins used to say "Wiki is not therapy" when banning crazy people.

Most people are certified "crazy" by a qualified psychiatrist though, not some wikipedian on a mission to improve the world's grammar.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Somey]

Most people are certified "crazy" by a qualified psychiatrist though, not some wikipedian on a mission to improve the world's grammar.

Nobody is suggesting he be certified in any way, Mr. Malleus - only that he be removed from the stress-inducing factor. The fact is, Fowler&fowler (T-C-L-K-R-D) is right, and some of the entries on Ottava's talk page do indicate severe WP-induced mental stress, which many of us have seen before and none of us want to see again. An immediate indefinite ban would actually be the best way to help him, whereas an ArbCom case would be the best way to make his mental state even worse.

None of this is meant to suggest that I've changed my mind about Ottava's behavior here on WR, which I still believe to have been an experiment in how far a person like him can go to annoy us here before getting his account suspended. Nevertheless, the mere fact that he would even do that at all should have been a strong indication to ArbCom and the admins that Ottava was, and is, a nervous breakdown waiting to happen. The further away he can get from Wikipedia, the better off he'll be.

[Malleus]

Most people are certified "crazy" by a qualified psychiatrist though, not some wikipedian on a mission to improve the world's grammar.

Nobody is suggesting he be certified in any way, Mr. Malleus - only that he be removed from the stress-inducing factor. The fact is, Fowler&fowler (T-C-L-K-R-D) is right, and some of the entries on Ottava's talk page do indicate severe WP-induced mental stress, which many of us have seen before and none of us want to see again. An immediate indefinite ban would actually be the best way to help him, whereas an ArbCom case would be the best way to make his mental state even worse.

None of this is meant to suggest that I've changed my mind about Ottava's behavior here on WR, which I still believe to have been an experiment in how far a person like him can go to annoy us here before getting his account suspended. Nevertheless, the mere fact that he would even do that at all should have been a strong indication to ArbCom and the admins that Ottava was, and is, a nervous breakdown waiting to happen. The further away he can get from Wikipedia, the better off he'll be.

So you're a qualified psychiatrist too. Fair enough.

[Somey]

So you're a qualified psychiatrist too. Fair enough.

I understand your reluctance to accept this, Mr. Malleus - nobody wants to believe that a mere website could cause a person that much stress. But it does happen, I've seen it happen, and Ottava is currently displaying many of the same indicators - in fact, the stage he's currently in (expressing resignation/regret over past mistakes while still defending his intentions as honorable and/or justifiable) is usually the last stage before the person either goes apeshit and starts posting a lot of crazy weirdness, or else snaps and disappears completely.

There was a case on Uncyclopedia where we were able to find out what was really going on at home with one of these guys, because his wife was posting stuff about it to another website - she didn't really understand what was happening, and in fact she thought her husband was up until 4 AM every night "working." She actually believed his job was causing him all that stress, driving him nuts, etc., when in fact it was a wiki site, and not even Wikipedia, where the stakes are much higher. I assume he eventually ended up on happy pills, and I think he may have even kept his job, but who knows - it might have ended pretty badly under just slightly different circumstances.

And Ottava, if you're reading this, forget everything I've ever said about you - none of that matters. Just get away from the damn computer for a while. Don't think that just because you're smart and know you're doing the right thing, you're immune to stress-induced psychosis. Force yourself to get some perspective - it's just not that big a deal.

[Malleus]

And Ottava, if you're reading this, forget everything I've ever said about you - none of that matters. Just get away from the damn computer for a while.

There we probably can agree.

[dogbiscuit]

I think the most memorable case we had here was AB, and I think that there was civil enough communication with Wikipedia that all sides recognised that AB was spiralling down into some mental chaos and all sides encouraged a disengagement from Wikipedia and the Review.

It is in the nature of WR that we will attract such people, and although we are not experts, common sense dictates that where it seems that an individual is in distress that basic humanity requires we attempt to act responsibly, even if we only have blunt tools to use.

Wikipedia is the same. I think, for example, that if people are found to be editing for extreme amounts of time, and I'd suggest for a voluntary site even a couple of hours a day on a regular basis suggests that there is too much enthusiasm for Teh Interweb over The Real World, (I certainly bother about the time I spend here being excessive) then a concerned site administration should be suggesting that these people should be backing off, instead they are idolised.

[Eva Destruction]

I think the most memorable case we had here was AB, and I think that there was civil enough communication with Wikipedia that all sides recognised that AB was spiralling down into some mental chaos and all sides encouraged a disengagement from Wikipedia and the Review.

It is in the nature of WR that we will attract such people, and although we are not experts, common sense dictates that where it seems that an individual is in distress that basic humanity requires we attempt to act responsibly, even if we only have blunt tools to use.

Wikipedia is the same. I think, for example, that if people are found to be editing for extreme amounts of time, and I'd suggest for a voluntary site even a couple of hours a day on a regular basis suggests that there is too much enthusiasm for Teh Interweb over The Real World, (I certainly bother about the time I spend here being excessive) then a concerned site administration should be suggesting that these people should be backing off, instead they are idolised.

I see it the opposite way in this case. Certainly, if someone were clearly mentally ill, or if an obvious child were being bullied, there's a duty of care - but Ottava's clearly an adult, and to me just looks annoyed, not nuts. While I've now lost whatever faith I had in Wikipedia as a project, I've been in the state where I could spend two-three hours a day there, and even in retrospect I don't see an issue, as long as one can and does walk away. I don't and never did subscribe to the "for the greater good" line on Wikipedia; I see it as the online equivalent of building model railroads, crocheting, or modding autos. Sure, I agree that "walk away if it isn't fun" is a healthy attitude, but different people have different ways of working - IIRC Ottava is some kind of Jesuit or similar in real life, and probably has a considerably higher tolerance to arguments than most.

(I think that was part of his problem on both WP and WR - what he sees as debating-society style close analysis, hypothetical points and displays of formal logic, look to other people like nitpicking, rambling speculation and smartassery, respectively. Jon Awbrey and Peter Damian had the same problem.)

[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.

[Eva Destruction]

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.

Moulton, did you just say something I agree with?

[Moulton]

Moulton, did you just say something I agree with?

Hopefully so.

[LaraLove]

If he ever did this before I don't remember it. Since August he's contributed 7 featured articles and nearly 30 good articles on scholarly topics. Fantastic content writer; here's wishing he were better with people. Let's give him a little breathing room.

How persistent and severe would Ottava have to be in his attacks on other editors before his conduct would be deemed intolerable? Do you think it's possible that Ottava has been doing all that constructive editing because he realizes that he'd otherwise be quickly banned? If he was restricted in some way that prevented him from trolling, he'd probably lose interest in editing altogether, which may in fact be essentially what happened this time.

How "persistent and severe" do your own attacks have to be before your conduct is deemed "intolerable"? Are you seriously proposing that anyone would work on 7 featured articles and 30 GAs just to avoid being banned?

You're way beyond crazy everyking.

Better than being a drama-mongering douchebag that doesn't contribute much of value to the project. WP certainly has a few of those as well.

Did I just call Ottava a drama-mongering douchebag? Maybe... but not necessarily.

I think you are being way too cynical, I certainly wouldn't put the effort into contributing all that he does just so he can troll with impunity - of course, he might have realised he can be a troll as a side project in addition to the content which he seems to enjoy contributing. That said, I don't think he is particuarly trollish, just has a filthy temper and has discovered he can (up till now) make people back down by screaming harrasment. Frankly is you want to troll with impunity, either edit ED, go play on/b/ or become an admin, all of which are easier options that doing what he is doing.

It's more likely that the constructive editing is the side project and the trolling is the main event. After all, when confronted with the imminent likelihood of sanctions that would limit his ability to troll, he chose to leave and not write articles anymore. Doesn't that speak volumes about his priorities? Also, considering that he's a religious fanatic, I don't think playing around with a bunch of vulgar children would have much troll appeal for him.

This assumes that he doesn't genuinely believe he's been harassed. I talk to Ottava often in IRC, mainly because he's pings me incessantly and I rarely ignore such messages. Anyway, I can't tell, despite all these chats, exactly what's up with him. I do, however, believe that he seriously thinks he's been harassed. Whether or not it's the actual case, I haven't looked into it to be able to give an opinion. I also think he enjoys the drama, and I think he defends his enemies to keep them from attacking him later, and that he does what he can to form alliances that he thinks will benefit him in the future.

Now, whether he's highly intelligent and does all this as a game for his own amusement, or there's some sort of psychological issue that drives him to keep the drama turned to 11 at all times, I'm not sure about.

He gets in arguments over all sorts of things in IRC with people as well. I don't even recall all of the topics, but one lighthearted discussion of the apocalypse (where some of the boys in the room were discussing hypotheticals and possible strategies to survive), Ottava joined in and it eventually turned into a nasty discussion. Everyone else seemed to be having fun with it, but he disagreed with something and just... bad times. Another time there was a discussion about the differences between the affects of toxins and hallucinogens, and that got ugly too, and all of a sudden. Some random comment seemed to set Ottava off for no apparent reason and it just spiraled out after that.

Crazy shit, but whether it's actually crazy or him just being a troll, hard to tell. He also often seems not to realize when he's being trolled, but don't call him an Aspie. He'll freak out.

[Peter Damian]

(I think that was part of his problem on both WP and WR - what he sees as debating-society style close analysis, hypothetical points and displays of formal logic, look to other people like nitpicking, rambling speculation and smartassery, respectively. Jon Awbrey and Peter Damian had the same problem.)

I quite liked some of the points Ottava was making. He pays close attention to detail, and carefully and painstakingly argues his points, and he is very persistent. These are all qualities highly regarded in academia, and are no doubt important in the construction of reliable reference sources. I don't know whether they are of any value on Wikipedia.

[Malleus]

,,, but don't call him an Aspie. He'll freak out.

I'd just look puzzled. What's an "Aspie"?

[Eva Destruction]

,,, but don't call him an Aspie. He'll freak out.

I'd just look puzzled. What's an "Aspie"?

Aspies. "[Aspies] often display behavior, interests, and activities that are restricted and repetitive and are sometimes abnormally intense or focused" could sum up about 95% of the people on Wikipedia, it has to be said.

[Friday]

,,, but don't call him an Aspie. He'll freak out.

I'd just look puzzled. What's an "Aspie"?

Asperger Syndrome. "...people with it therefore show significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests..."

It's a fancified word for what I would simply call a "kook". Altho, it's a particular specific type of kook.

[Malleus]

Ah! I'm firmly in the Thomas Satz camp; "mental illness" is a fiction dreamt up by medical doctors.

[Friday]

Ah! I'm firmly in the Thomas Satz camp; "mental illness" is a fiction dreamt up by medical doctors.

You've been around Wikipedia how long?

How is it possible that you don't believe in mental illness?

[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.

[Malleus]

Ah! I'm firmly in the Thomas Satz camp; "mental illness" is a fiction dreamt up by medical doctors.

You've been around Wikipedia how long?

How is it possible that you don't believe in mental illness?

Fair point.

To answer you seriously though, I believe that there are some physical conditions that result in behavioural disorders, but not all (or even most) behavioural disorders are rooted in a physical condition, so the concept of "mental illnesss" is meaningless.

[Milton Roe]

Ah! I'm firmly in the Thomas Satz camp; "mental illness" is a fiction dreamt up by medical doctors.

You've been around Wikipedia how long?

How is it possible that you don't believe in mental illness?

Fair point.

To answer you seriously though, I believe that there are some physical conditions that result in behavioural disorders, but not all (or even most) behavioural disorders are rooted in a physical condition, so the concept of "mental illnesss" is meaningless.

Um, how do YOU know whether or not most behavorioral disorders are rooted in a physical condition? The best you can say is that most are not rooted in any physical condition we can find, but since they are problems with the performance of the brain-as-computer, we wouldn't EXPECT to, so that's not worth much. We can't examine the brain very well at the level of software and programming. But each time we do, we find evidence that behavioral pathology is connected to physical pathology we not aware of.

The terms "software" and "hardware" when it comes to computers are still useful terms, although I defy you to define either one in a way which naturally excludes the other (which one is "firmware"?).

Mental illness is a term useful for behavioral problems which are resistant to simple behavioral modification. At least some of these are physical. We don't know about the others. This no more makes the term "mental illness" meaningless, than "software corruption" is made meaningless because we don't have a hard definition of "software."

[SB_Johnny]

I understand your reluctance to accept this, Mr. Malleus - nobody wants to believe that a mere website could cause a person that much stress. But it does happen, I've seen it happen...

I have too, at least twice before. I even got pretty close to the brink myself a few years back. I know there are people studying this sort of thing lately, but not sure what (if any) results are in. Online "communities" really can't be discussed as communities without scare quotes: something different and novel goes on in these relationships that we probably aren't well adapted for. Or maybe it's different with people who grow up with them. Or maybe this needs a whole new thread somewhere.

Personally, I think at least part of Ottava's problem is that he's playing one MMPORG (wikicup), while on the other hand trying to transfer his "points" to an entirely different MMPORG (wikipedia management and "society").

I don't even know what to think of it... in terms more familiar to me, he might be a great goat breeder and have wonderful things to say to the 4H kids, but he's obviously not the sort who would be at all gifted when it comes to organizing a county fair or discussing rules.

I'm also completely unsure whether I'm supposed to weigh in on the arbcom case... he made numerous attempts to drag me in on random dramas via IRC (a similar experience to Lara's, I suspect), which annoyed me to the point that I've more or less given up on IRC, which used to be a nice wind-down at the end of the day (and he was doing this on #wikiversity-en, which in theory has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia and it's dramahs).

[Malleus]

Ah! I'm firmly in the Thomas Satz camp; "mental illness" is a fiction dreamt up by medical doctors.

You've been around Wikipedia how long?

How is it possible that you don't believe in mental illness?

Fair point.

To answer you seriously though, I believe that there are some physical conditions that result in behavioural disorders, but not all (or even most) behavioural disorders are rooted in a physical condition, so the concept of "mental illnesss" is meaningless.

Um, how do YOU know whether or not most behavorioral disorders are rooted in a physical condition?."

I don't need to "know", I simply need to be able to find Occam's Razor. For many conditions, nothing is explained by the medical model of "illness" that can't be equally well explained by more straight-forward psychological explanations.

Or to put it another way, I don't believe in mental illness for the same reason I don't believe in ghosts, or life after death.

Your analysis is also very simplistic, ignoring as it does the cultural aspects of "mental illness". Many of those revered as saints in medieval times would be considered the most hopeless lunatics if they were alive today. When do you think that the concept of mental illness first emerged?

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Milton Roe]

Um, how do YOU know whether or not most behavorioral disorders are rooted in a physical condition?."

I don't need to "know", I simply need to be able to find Occam's Razor. For many conditions, nothing is explained by the medical model of "illness" that can't be equally well explained by more straight-forward psychological explanations.

Or to put it another way, I don't believe in mental illness for the same reason I don't believe in ghosts, or life after death.

But you have not a single instance where somebody provably survived death, or some ghost was proven to exist. If you did, you'd have a tough time applying Occam's razor to all the other cases. You could say that if you found 99 swans that weren't black, that the 100th would also not be black. That might be Occam's razor, but Occam cannot be trusted even there. If you do find ONE, then what does Occam tell you THEN?

In the case of mental illness, we have many types of psychosis which are demonstrably caused by physical factors, many (indeed most) of which were initially not recognized. For example mental illness in niacin and thiamin deficiencies, and later increased risk of schizophrenia in soldiers who had sustained pentrating head wounds. Inductively, I would suppose that many more causes of mental illness have yet to be identified, and that we have not come to the point that "psychological explanations" suffice for all the remainder that we have not so-far classified as "organic." Occam's razor doesn't really apply here: I could just as well argue that the fraction of psychoses associated with physical causes has risen over the years, and that Occam's razor suggests that it will continue to rise to 100%.

Your analysis is also very simplistic, ignoring as it does the cultural aspects of "mental illness". Many of those revered as saints in medieval times would be considered the most hopeless lunatics if they were alive today. When do you think that the concept of mental illness first emerged?

It's hard to say, but roughly it does correspond to the time of the post-Newtonian enlightenment, when religious explanations for everything were on the wane.

However, if you give up religion, you're left as a mechanist. The brain is a mechanical computer, programmed by culture, and all the programming shows up as mechanical changes to tissue (firmware)-- some of it reversible and some not. By this reasoning, there are no "purely" psychological behavioral problems. They're all a result of some change in the brain which may (or may not) be reversible by further verbal conversation or behavioral modification. Simple enough. Why do you assume they should be? Do you really think that every change I can make to a mechanical computerized system with a software command, is reversable with a software command fix? I sure as hell am not going to make you head of National Computer Security, then. Again I'm arguing inductively, but if you want to toss out religion and view the brain as a very complicated mechanical device, you have little other choice but to argue by analogy to the computers we do understand.

And if you want to argue from biology, there are any number of experimental models were you can show that behavioral imprinting on young animals is absolutely irreversible later with the same techniques. What is your "psychological" model for that? Indeed the same is true for humans in ways that are very familiar: for example, most people can learn to speak any given language (or more than one) without an accent, if exposed to it as toddlers. But it's a rare person who can learn a second one without any accent, after puberty. The psychological stimuli are the same, but the outcomes are different. So what is the "psychological" explanation of that behavioral imprint? What would Occam say?

[Malleus]

I suggest Milton that you take some time out to at least peruse Thomas Szatz's book, because you're quite clearly completely unaware of the anti-psychiatry movement. You could always start at The Myth of Mental Illness.

But isn't this a digression? I thought this thread was about Ottava?

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[tarantino]

Your analysis is also very simplistic, ignoring as it does the cultural aspects of "mental illness". Many of those revered as saints in medieval times would be considered the most hopeless lunatics if they were alive today. When do you think that the concept of mental illness first emerged?

Many of the symptoms exhibited by saints could be explained by a physical illness, temporal lobe epilepsy. From personal experience, I believe this to be a likely explanation.

A relative of my mine exhibited many symptoms of various mental disorders. They had rapid mood swings, auditory and visual hallucinations and violent outbursts, among several other problems. After years of ineffectual and sometimes harmful treatment by psychiatrists, a neurologist was consulted, and it was discovered they were having seizures. An effective anti-epileptic was soon found and all symptoms were significantly lessened or disappeared entirely.

This post has been edited by tarantino:

[Milton Roe]

I suggest Milton that you take some time out to at least peruse Thomas Szatz's book, because you're quite clearly completely unaware of the anti-psychiatry movement. You could always start at The Myth of Mental Illness.

I'm well aware of the book and read it years ago. Szasz reminds me of those people who refuse to believe that HIV causes AIDS or that cigarettes cause cancer. How do you PROVE it to them? Turns out you can't. It's almost impossible to prove a causal relation to somebody who refuses to believe it, if you can't do the demo where you deliberately cause the effect. As here. Szasz gets rid of all mental diseases by refusing to recognize them. I can do the same with all physical diseases as well, for Szasz is quite wrong that only mental disease require a participatory judgement to be recognized. Recognition of all pathology requires a judgement. Consider the problem of a veterinarian at a zoo. How do you know which animals are ill? One solution is simply to decide that none of them are, no matter what they do and how they look. There you go. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) Even if they die, nobody claimed zoo animals are immortal, did they?

Of course, no zoo will pay you to be that kind of a vet. And nobody would pay Szasz to be that kind of a shrink. It's not a very helpful attitude.

[Obesity]

I suggest Milton that you take some time out to at least peruse Thomas Szatz's book, because you're quite clearly completely unaware of the anti-psychiatry movement. You could always start at The Myth of Mental Illness.

You may also wish consider the wisdom of a different Thomas, one Thomas Mapother IV, who offered a similar sentiment:
"You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do."

[Malleus]

Your analysis is also very simplistic, ignoring as it does the cultural aspects of "mental illness". Many of those revered as saints in medieval times would be considered the most hopeless lunatics if they were alive today. When do you think that the concept of mental illness first emerged?

Many of the symptoms exhibited by saints could be explained by a physical illness, temporal lobe epilepsy. From personal experience, I believe this to be a likely explanation.

A relative of my mine exhibited many symptoms of various mental disorders. They had rapid mood swings, auditory and visual hallucinations and violent outbursts, among several other problems. After years of ineffectual and sometimes harmful treatment by psychiatrists, a neurologist was consulted, and it was discovered they were having seizures. An effective anti-epileptic was soon found and all symptoms were significantly lessened or disappeared entirely.

I'm glad that your relative was finally sorted out, sounds like quite a distressing experience. My point though was that such behaviour would not have been considered a symptom of "illness" during the medieval period, whatever its cause, whereas depression is now one of the most common "illnesses" in many countries. I think I'm right in saying that depression is now the most common illness in the UK. Depression in its more severe forms may be debilitating, but an illness?

I suggest Milton that you take some time out to at least peruse Thomas Szatz's book, because you're quite clearly completely unaware of the anti-psychiatry movement. You could always start at The Myth of Mental Illness.

I'm well aware of the book and read it years ago. Szasz reminds me of those people who refuse to believe that HIV causes AIDS or that cigarettes cause cancer. How do you PROVE it to them? Turns out you can't. It's almost impossible to prove a causal relation to somebody who refuses to believe it, if you can't do the demo where you deliberately cause the effect.

A causal relationship can be demonstrated to be statistically significant rather easily, as I'm sure you know. What's rather more difficult to prove to any individual is that their own smoking will shorten their life, as it's only a probability after all, not a certainty; "My mother lived to be 98, and she smoked 20 cigarettes every day of her life."

[tarantino]

A causal relationship can be demonstrated to be statistically significant rather easily, as I'm sure you know. What's rather more difficult to prove to any individual is that their own smoking will shorten their life, as it's only a probability after all, not a certainty; "My mother lived to be 98, and she smoked 20 cigarettes every day of her life."

An exception, certainly, that was most famously exemplified by George Burns and the jazz musician Eubie Blake who smoked (they say 2 packs of cigarettes a day) for 85 years. Shortly before Blake's death at the age of 96 he said " If I'd known I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself.".

Burns smoked 10 cigars a day for 70 years and lived to be 100. He said “smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics.”

[Happy drinker]

Burns smoked 10 cigars a day for 70 years and lived to be 100. He said “smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics.”

I'm surprised to see George Burns accused of plagiarism.

Fletcher Knebel (T-H-L-K-D)

[Milton Roe]

I suggest Milton that you take some time out to at least peruse Thomas Szatz's book, because you're quite clearly completely unaware of the anti-psychiatry movement. You could always start at The Myth of Mental Illness.

I'm well aware of the book and read it years ago. Szasz reminds me of those people who refuse to believe that HIV causes AIDS or that cigarettes cause cancer. How do you PROVE it to them? Turns out you can't. It's almost impossible to prove a causal relation to somebody who refuses to believe it, if you can't do the demo where you deliberately cause the effect.

A causal relationship can be demonstrated to be statistically significant rather easily, as I'm sure you know. What's rather more difficult to prove to any individual is that their own smoking will shorten their life, as it's only a probability after all, not a certainty; "My mother lived to be 98, and she smoked 20 cigarettes every day of her life."

Actually, it's worse than that. Forget the grandmother and her n = 1 contribution. How does one demonstrate that smoking causes cancer, with mere statistical evaluation of people who chose to smoke vs. people who don't? Turns out that you can't do it. Even if one group has more disease than the other, past all reasonable possibility of chance association, this only suggests some kind of causality, but not necessarily the kind you're interested in. For example, if A correlates with B, it may be that A and B are caused by C. In the case of smoking, people who choose to smoke are NOT THE SAME POPULATION as people who don't. So they're self-selected, and different to begin with. You can't control for such differences unless you design a randomized controlled trial in which people are randomized to smoke or not, and then this is enforced to make sure that those assigned to smoke do so, and those who don't, don't. You'll never see such a study. The closest that thas ever been done is several smoking intervention trials in which people were assigned at random to heavier or lighter pressure to stop smoking. Alas, no intervention trial is perfect and many people will be unable to quit. And again there's every reason to suppose that those who try to quit but cannot, are not the same people as those who try and succeed. So they undoubtedly differ in other ways from the smokers, than just smoking.

If you think such factors aren't important, you should take a look at the epidemiology for vitamin E supplementation and the statistics behind hormone replacement for post-menopausal women. In each case, the evidence that vitamin E supplementation and hormone replace were beneficial, was massive. But this was all post-hoc analysis, which could not control for the fact that pill-popping women tend to take care of themselves better than woman who don't bother, IN GENERAL. So they're not the same groups to begin with, even disregarding the hormone/nutrient effects.

Finally, the biomed establishment was forced to run some double-blind prospective randomized placebo controlled trials of vitamin E. And also (different trials) hormone replacement. These resulted in massive failures. Very few of the good effects suggested by the epidemiology were seen. So the differences seen in retrospective statistics were NOT due to the molecules, but were INDEED self-selection bias. Wups. Now-- prove that's not happening for cigarettes, but in the other direction.

Don't expect any help from animal models-- if you're looking for lung cancer or heart disease produced by smoking in animals, forget it. It's never been seen. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Malleus]

You'll get no argument from me. I've never smoked, but my wife does and she's a professional pharmacologist, with a PhD. She's often pointed that there's actually no very convincing study on the harmful effects of smoking. Or even, come to that, any bad effects from driving after having consumed a moderate amount of alcohol. In fact some studies seem to suggest that it's actually beneficial. Or so I'm led to believe.

I'm always amused, btw, seeing a 1930s/40s film in which someone visits a doctor. Inevitably the doctor will offer his patient a cigarette.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Newyorkbrad]

You'll get no argument from me. I've never smoked, but my wife does and she's a professional pharmacologist, with a PhD. She's often pointed that there's actually no very convincing study on the harmful effects of smoking.

I'm not known for name-calling, but this is blithering idiocy.

[Malleus]

You'll get no argument from me. I've never smoked, but my wife does and she's a professional pharmacologist, with a PhD. She's often pointed that there's actually no very convincing study on the harmful effects of smoking.

I'm not known for name-calling, but this is blithering idiocy.

Then you're clearly a blithering idiot, as it's perfectly true.

[everyking]

You'll get no argument from me. I've never smoked, but my wife does and she's a professional pharmacologist, with a PhD. She's often pointed that there's actually no very convincing study on the harmful effects of smoking.

I'm not known for name-calling, but this is blithering idiocy.

Then you're clearly a blithering idiot, as it's perfectly true.

At first I thought we had drifted hopelessly off-topic, but then I read this post and I thought of Ottava again. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by everyking:

[Malleus]

At first I thought we had drifted hopelessly off-topic, but then I read this post and I thought of Ottava again. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I'm encouraged that you're capable of "thinking". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[everyking]

At first I thought we had drifted hopelessly off-topic, but then I read this post and I thought of Ottava again. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I'm encouraged that you're capable of "thinking". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Even if Ottava is banned, his spirit will endure as long as editors are still insulting one another for no good reason.

[A Horse With No Name]

Even if Ottava is banned, his spirit will endure as long as editors are still insulting one another for no good reason.

You make Ottava sound like Elton John's tribute to Marilyn Monroe: your candle burned out long before your legend ever did. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Which may be the first (and probably last) time Ottava was compared to Marilyn Monroe. Goodbye, Norma Jean, indeed! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Milton Roe]

Even if Ottava is banned, his spirit will endure as long as editors are still insulting one another for no good reason.

You make Ottava sound like Elton John's tribute to Marilyn Monroe: your candle burned out long before your legend ever did. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Which may be the first (and probably last) time Ottava was compared to Marilyn Monroe. Goodbye, Norma Jean, indeed! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Actually, Ottava's work is there being compared with Elton John lyrics. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) A much better match...

[Malleus]

Even if Ottava is banned, his spirit will endure as long as editors are still insulting one another for no good reason.

You make Ottava sound like Elton John's tribute to Marilyn Monroe: your candle burned out long before your legend ever did. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Which may be the first (and probably last) time Ottava was compared to Marilyn Monroe. Goodbye, Norma Jean, indeed! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

I don't know if you saw the Queen's performance (I mean Elton John, of course) at Princess Diana's funeral, for which he changed the words so as to refer to Diana instead of Marilyn. I have rarely seen such a vomit-inducing travesty in my entire life.

At first I thought we had drifted hopelessly off-topic, but then I read this post and I thought of Ottava again. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I'm encouraged that you're capable of "thinking". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Even if Ottava is banned, his spirit will endure as long as editors are still insulting one another for no good reason.

What leads you to believe there's "no good reason"?

[everyking]

I don't know if you saw the Queen's performance (I mean Elton John, of course) at Princess Diana's funeral, for which he changed the words so as to refer to Diana instead of Marilyn. I have rarely seen such a vomit-inducing travesty in my entire life.

Elton John gets this treatment too? It seems to me you're sympathetic to Ottava and hostile to virtually everyone else, which is, on reflection, vaguely horrifying. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Malleus]

I don't know if you saw the Queen's performance (I mean Elton John, of course) at Princess Diana's funeral, for which he changed the words so as to refer to Diana instead of Marilyn. I have rarely seen such a vomit-inducing travesty in my entire life.

Elton John gets this treatment too? It seems to me you're sympathetic to Ottava and hostile to virtually everyone else, which is, on reflection, vaguely horrifying. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

And your opinion is of interest to me why exactly?

[Cedric]

Even if Ottava is banned, his spirit will endure as long as editors are still insulting one another for no good reason.

You make Ottava sound like Elton John's tribute to Marilyn Monroe: your candle burned out long before your legend ever did. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Which may be the first (and probably last) time Ottava was compared to Marilyn Monroe. Goodbye, Norma Jean, indeed! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

I don't know if you saw the Queen's performance (I mean Elton John, of course) at Princess Diana's funeral, for which he changed the words so as to refer to Diana instead of Marilyn. I have rarely seen such a vomit-inducing travesty in my entire life.

Really? Was it that much more vomit-inducing than her brother's eulogy? The scion of one family of inbreds calling out another family of inbreds during a funeral service with the children of the deceased present? Despite the applause of the crowds outside, I found it all quite self-indulgent and disgusting. I and my siblings may be the product of many generations of British peasants, and yet we had no difficulty at all in interring our parents' remains after quite respectable and moving funerary services. What a curse it must be to be a nob.