::::Hi Cesar, Joema, too.  I may be wrong, but I think it's probably preferred form to list all those who are likely to have an interest in the outcome of these disputes.  I'm quite willing to take Cesar at his word when he says he will not re-tag the article.  Clearly it is Ombudsman who has been refusing attempts at dialog.  I don't think any of us like these sorts of bureaucratic processes but at times they are all we have to work with.   

 ::::Personally, I think I would enjoy discussing any number of topics with the contributors to the BioPsy article, even though I have raised criticisms.  Sometimes I think that some of the problems we have encountered arise from the unusual situation of having several well educated, articulate individuals with somewhat divergent views on how best to handle this one topic.  If we were dealing with ignorant or semi-literate contributors I don't think we would have spent so much time trying to get through to one another.  And as I learned some time ago, intelligent, educated, articulate people are much more difficult to persuade than those with fewer such credentials.  So, let's go through the process that was designed for these disputes and all agree to abide by the resolution, however it turns out.  (Not that we will have much choice.)  I have great expectations that Cesar will contribute substantially to other topics related to mental health public policies, an area where there is considerable dispute.  I just want the Wikipedia to be the most professional production we make it.  Who knows, we may find ourselves on the same side of other articles.