Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 19:45, 20 October 2009 (→‎Arbitrator views and discussion: clarify). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for amendment

Request to amend prior case: Obama articles

Case affected
Obama articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 13) Grundle2600 admonished and restricted
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

Statement by Jayron32

Grundle is under an admonishment and editing restriction of 1RR/week for his part in perpetuating tendendious edit wars at Obama-related articles. At Presidency of Barack Obama, he added a statement to the article which other editors challenged in good faith: see [2] for chronology of edits. He made his edit at 22:43, October 12 and was subsequently reverted. His immediate response was to tag the article with an Advertisement tag, which seems a blatant violation of WP:POINT, and given his history with problems of this nature, such violations should not go unattended to. The current ArbCom sanctions only deal explicitly with reverting, but does not cover such eggregious point-making attempts explicitly. Asking for clarification/ammendement to the case to make explicit that such actions are not particularly good. --Jayron32 03:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Ncmvocalist below, thank you for doing more legwork to dig up the now-expired community sanctions. I was unaware of that. I should note that Grundle2600 has, to my experience, been civil and courteous in talk page discussions, but the sort of passive-aggressive pointmaking behavior of deliberately misapplying a maintenance tag to make a WP:POINT about his personal opinion over an article seems disruptive beyond the pale. Normally, I would have merely warned him, or perhaps gone to ANI about this, but given his long history of problems at political articles, and the existing ArbCom sanction, both he AND the community are well aware of the prior problems he has had in this area, and he should be expected to know better. I do want to clarify that I don't necessarily seek a block right now over this singular incident, but rather to close a loophole in the ArbCom sanctions which, while preventing reverting, do not seem to cover this sort of tendentious, pointy disruption. I just think we need to broaden the sanctions to make sure that he cannot continue to be disruptive in other ways besides reverting. --Jayron32 13:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to several comments below, general tones, rather than specific editors. Let me make it clear that, in general, I am not asking that Grundle2600 be restricted from editing these articles, even editing them boldly, or engaging in civil talk page discussions regarding his edits. I fully support his doing so. We need alternate viewpoints and different voices at all articles at Wikipedia, including the Obama articles, and I have no problem in general with Grundle2600 over his content editing or his talk page discussions. What I am finding a big problem is the sort of pointy disruption where, when he doesn't get his way right away, he starts to drop clearly inappropriate tags on articles. I could even, possibly, maybe, a little bit excuse the use of a {{POV}} tag if he genuinely felt that the article only presented general praise of Obama (overt praise being distinctly different from lack of criticism), but the use of a tag like {{advertisement}} is a grossly disruptive act, and should not happen again. He should make bold edits. He should discuss these when they are contested, and provide relevent sources to back his position in civil discussion on talk pages, but he should NOT be encouraged to use tags as an act of rebellion against an article when he doesn't get his way. --Jayron32 20:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Grundle2600. You've been here 2 1/2 years. To claim that you "didn't know" what the advertisement tag said or how to check what it said before you posted it, or anything like that, is plainly dishonest. Either a) you knew exactly what it said, and you pu it in the article anyways as an act of willful defiance or b) you added it without knowing what it said, and without caring what it said. You cannot claim naivitee on this one, given how long you have been here. You'd have been much better off saying nothing than claiming such an act was some sort of honest mistake. That statement alone appears disingenuous on the face. --Jayron32 02:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to concerns by arbitrators
A clarification or amendment by ArbCom would be most helpful in avoiding the endless "disrupt-receive warning-wait till everyone forgets-disrupt again" cycle which inevitably befalls these situations. What inevitably happens is that if an admin were to block someone like Grundle for a disruption like this, they would get unblocked as "having not been warned" or something like that. All I was asking for from ArbCom is clarification that disruption of the nature noted is explicitly blockable on the first occurance. I am not asking that Grundle2600 be topic banned or otherwise restricted from Obama articles, ONLY that Grundle2600 is expressly forbidden from disrupting the articles when he doesn't get his way. --Jayron32 05:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I was doing a bit of maintenance work on WP:RESTRICT and discovered that Grundle2600 was under a community topic ban (per this discussion) from articles related to US politics and politicians, from 25 June 2009 until 25 September 2009 (but the restriction explicitly allowed him to make suggestions and participate in discussion on talk pages provided he is civil and respectful to others.) Although Grundle2600 seemed to comply with this restriction for the duration specified, the moment it expired, he returned to editing those articles. I picked a handful of edits that were occurring on the articles he returned to - make of it what you will:

Note: there may be other edits (good or bad) that I did not pick up on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Jayron32 above, I can see what you're saying, and my opinion is no different to yours on whether a block is necessary over this incident (particularly at this late point). I also recall Grundle's edits (raised by Tarc below) to check how many minutes were left on his restriction which concerned me at the time; I considered it may resolve itself with time - obviously, it hasn't. Though I'd support attempts to close loopholes, I'm unconvinced that it will, on its own, resolve the underlying issues in this case; I don't think there will be a reform in his conduct as he doesn't seem to understand the issues with the edits above, let alone this particular incident. In such circumstances, something more may be needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Grundle2600

After I added well sourced, relevant information to the article, people kept erasing the parts that were critical of Obama.

Without the criticsm, the article was POV, and looked like an advertisement, which is why I added the tags.

On this section of the article's talk page, I said:

"Saying "nope" is not a legitimate reason to remove large amounts of relevant, well sourced material."

"The person, PhGustaf, who made this edit, which removed a substanial amount of material, commented by saying "nope" and nothing else. The material that they removed had been discussed extensively on the talk page and talk page archive before it was added. Saying "nope" is not a legitimate reason to remove relevant, well sourced material."

"Removing large amounts of well sourced, relevant material that is critical of the subject makes the article POV and also makes it look like an advertisement. I have added the POV and advertisement tags to the article."

"NPOV states: "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.""

"Why is it OK for the article to mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not OK for it to mention his actions in favor of offshore drilling?"

"How can anyone say that including his actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV?"

"There was consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling. Also please explain why you think citing one of those things without simultaneously citing the other does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use, and avoided reporting the statutory rape of a 15 year old student? If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent? How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable? How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party not relevant to the section on those czars?"

Thus, I did a very throrough job of explaining how the article was POV and looked like an advertisement. I also discussed these things in several other sections of the talk page, some of which are now in the talk page archives.

To anyone who thinks I should be punished for my actions, please answer the following question: How can anyone say that including his actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."?

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood what the Advertisement tag was for. I won't make that mistake again.

There is nothing wrong with me making posts on my own talk page to make absolutely sure that I did not edit political articles before my topic ban expired.

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the people who want me to be punished have answered my questions in this arbitration discussion. Likewise, none of the people who want my additions to the article to be removed have answered my questions on the article's talk page. Without the things that I added, the article violates NPOV. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikidemon

Note - I'm a party to the original case but more or less uninvolved in this particular editing dispute

I've watched this without becoming involved other than to wish Grundle2600 well and remove a couple tags I thought he was too hasty to place on an article[25] (leading to a polite discussion between us). Just a quick impression here. I know some editors are frustrated with Grundle2600's ongoing participation, in the form of suggestions and now edits to add material they consider biased and where they see sourcing / synthesis problems. Although not always ideal, Grundle's proposals and their rejection look to be a series of content disputes no worse than what goes on every day and gets handled through normal process. It is here again only because there was a prior Arbcom case. But for that this is a routine matter well within the ability of the community to deal with. I don't think we would have an Arbcom case in the first place if this were the worst things got. What I'm trying to say is that this strikes me as under the radar. I don't really have any objective way to prove that or any diffs, just a hunch that we can all work constructively with Grundle2600 if we want, which should be the preference rather than giving up. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 4wajzkd02

See this edit and this discussion. I would like this editor to succeed in appropriately having his point of view added to the encyclopedia, but he is not listening and making WP:POINTs instead of consenus-driven contributions. I support the amendment proposed, but am concerned that it may not be enough to prevent this editor from gaming the system. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tarc.
In addition, if you look at the editor's contributions since this Amendment request, you'll see that the behavior of concern noted here continues unabated, even after the editor's statement (which strains credulity in that he asserts a position regarding WP:NPOV that, after all this time and all these interventions, is not supported by the facts).
Finally, if you look at Talk:2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize#Obama_sends_another_13.2C000_troops_to_Afghanistan_less_than_one_week_after_Nobel_Peace_Prize_win, he admits to adding a new section despite knowing that "it didn't need its own section - it's just that I didn't know where else to put it" and "the information itself is relevant, because of the incredible irony involved". I cannot believe that the editor fails to understand that both of these positions are incorrect behavior.
Thus, I've stricken my support for this amendment, and instead call for an indefinite ban from all Obama-related articles, broadly defined, in all namespaces. I hope then that the editor can find other areas in WP in which to contribute (and does not end up with a political topic ban, broadly defined). --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Referring again to Talk:2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize#Obama_sends_another_13.2C000_troops_to_Afghanistan_less_than_one_week_after_Nobel_Peace_Prize_win, either this editor knows what he is doing is wrong (and thus is being disingenuous and purposefully disruptive), or does not understand despite being told/warned/blocked/sanctioned/guided/warned-again/etc (and is being unintentionally disruptive, but disruptive nonetheless and, so far, incapable of learning). I don't see a middle ground. How will being "mentored" help him change his ways? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PhGustaf

I would agree with Grundle that "nope" is a rude edit summary. But, this has been going on for too long. Grundle is consistently polite and pleasant on talk pages, but consistently reposts the same old stuff rejected repeatedly by consensus. His three-month hiatus didn't work. User:wikidemon has been extraordinarily supportive of Grundle. If they both agree, perhaps a mentorship is in order. PhGustaf (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tarc that Grundle has worked the doe-eyed naif role too long. PhGustaf (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that any new or refreshed restrictions apply to talk pages too. There's no utility in recycling the same cheap shots over and over. PhGustaf (talk)

Statement by Tarc

Honestly, I think the time has come to drop the hammer here. Compared to serial disruptors such as ChildofMidnight, sure, Grundle looks unassuming, but looking at the overall approach of these two to Obama/political-related articles is like watching a case of good-cop-bad-cop. That Grundle is taking the honey approach rather than the vinegar shouldn't mean that his transgressions should be dealt with more leniently than others.

We have the recent editing linked to here. We have the long, long, long talk page histories at Talk:Gerald Walpin, Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama, and Talk:Political positions of Barack Obama, where he picked up the same exact arguments left off months ago before the topic ban. Christ, he was making test edits to his talk page to measure to the minute when the topic ban would expire!

Enough is enough. Tarc (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Grsz11

I don't even know what to describe it as, but this chain ([26], [27], [28], [29]) is inappropriate. He then re-added all the contentious material previously removed and discussed. Grundle refuses to get the point. There is a mechanism that can deal with this besides constantly coming to ARBCOM, but I am unsure why nobody with the tools will act. Grsz11 23:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment - I've never seen anyone do this and this before. Thanks to Tarc for pointing that out. I will wait for further statements from my fellow arbitrators, and an explanation from Grundle, but counting down the minutes until a topic ban expires shows completely the wrong attitude. I've also reviewed the edits provided by Ncmvocalist, and I see Grundle reigniting old battles. Also, this is not good conduct. I would support a motion to extend the restrictions in some way, while also noting the statement by Wikidemon. Carcharoth (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am entirely unclear why this is at ArbCom's doorstep. Previous ongoing problems with the editor were handled by a community ban previously and the topic area is under probation. I do not see why these community tools would be insufficient to address this situation. Vassyana (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Jayron's request for clarification: An editor that has been repeatedly warned about a particular sort of conduct need not receive fresh warnings for every new instance. This is trebly true for an editor that was previously subjected to serious sanctions for such behavior (such as a community ban). The purpose of providing a warning is to give an editor a fair opportunity to become aware concerns, understand them, and adjust their behavior accordingly (in accord with the spirit of WP:BITE and WP:AGF). It should not be used as a wikilawyering weapon when the editor has received plenty of such guidance. Vassyana (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the community wants to re-start the topic ban then go for it. Or are we being asked to implement one? Wizardman 15:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: ADHD

Case affected
ADHD arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 3) Scuro placed under mentorship
    Scuro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under mentorship for a period of one year. Scuro shall find a mentor of his choice, and shall inform the Committee once the mentor has been selected; if no mentor is found within one month of the closure of this case, the Committee will appoint a mentor. The terms of the mentorship must cover guidance on Wikipedia's sourcing and citation guidelines, but otherwise Scuro and the mentor are free to decide on the terms. Once an agreement on the terms is reached, Scuro or the mentor shall advise the Committee of the terms by email.
    Passed 10 to 0 to 1, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Remedy 7) Editors encouraged
    All editors interested in the topic area are encouraged to seek outside editorial assistance (by way of a request for comment, or by seeking input from relevant WikiProjects) in resolving the editorial disagreements relating to the due weight to be accorded to various points of view on controversies relating to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.
    Passed 11 to 0, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

Scuro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under mentorship for a period of one year. Scuro shall find a mentor of his choice, and shall inform the Committee once the mentor has been selected; if no mentor is found within one month of the closure of this case (that is, by 15 August 2009), the Committee will appoint a mentor. The terms of the mentorship must cover guidance on Wikipedia's sourcing and citation guidelines and observation of and assistance with effective communication on talk pages, but otherwise Scuro and the mentor are free to decide on the terms. Once an agreement on the terms is reached, Scuro or the mentor shall advise the Committee of the terms by email. Until said mentor is in place and the terms are approved by Scuro, the mentor and the Committee, Scuro is topic banned from editing articles and talk pages defined in "Topic area" above, broadly construed.
  • Desired modification, Revised, 10/10/09. If I may:
Scuro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under mentorship for a period of one year. Scuro and the Committee have agreed upon a mentor. Scuro and Xavexgoem shall agree upon the terms of the mentorship and advise the Committee of the terms by email before the end of October 2009. The terms of the mentorship must cover guidance on Wikipedia's sourcing and citation guidelines and observation of and assistance with effective communication on talk pages, but otherwise Scuro and the mentor are free to decide on the terms.

Statement by Hordaland

Thank you, Carcharoth, for combining the two requests! - Hordaland (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Unionhawk, 13:04 UTC. That was nicely put, UH. Surely all will agree with you. - Hordaland (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to scuro, 00:38 UTC In hope that my amendment request could be merged with Lg's, I used the same names as s/he did. I could have and probably should have notified some others of the request(s). - Hordaland (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to scuro 16:00 UTC Scuro has asked for clarification on five points. I’ll comment on the three which have anything to do with what I have said.
1.) "delaying tactics"
I wrote “...see as delaying tactics or otherwise not constructive.” The use of the words “delaying tactics” does, I’ll agree, imply intention. Therefore I’ve struck those words above. See also point 3 below, which is related.
2.) "...style of communicating is not conducive to the kinds of cooperation needed..."
Scuro’s posts sometimes start out on-topic and often end with confrontational admonishments which I, at least, find insulting. Some very recent examples (there are many more in the archives): Diff.Diff.Diff. Diff.
3.) trying to block collaboration --“...would like us to believe that my many requests for collaboration are anything but true appeals for seeking consensus. This is a "bad faith" assumption which has been refuted.”
It's not a bad faith assumption from my side; I believe that Scuro means well. I can’t see that his “has been refuted” link is relevant in this connection. Most of us have many edits under our belts on various topics, in cooperation with many editors. When it is only on the ADHD talk page that we, again and again, are told what Wikipedia wants us to do, it becomes insulting and, finally, just noise. It is my hope that a mentor will be able to show scuro when this sort of thing is happening and how to avoid it.- Hordaland (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on scuro's comment below, 11:46, 23 September. Scuro wrote: "...and that no other means of dispute resolution or even direct communication was attempted for this specific issue." The specific issue must be that which the two amendment requests have in common: the wish that scuro, too, should welcome MCOTW to the ADHD article(s). Many diffs can be provided to show that nearly all involved have pointed out that resistance to MCOTW makes no sense at all. WhatamIdoing put it well when she said (paraphrasing here) that scuro's reasoning is like having to clean the house before letting the house-cleaners in. It is simply not true to say that no direct communication was attempted for this issue. --Hordaland (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to scuro, 12:12, 25 September. This page is already quite long enough. I see no need for additional input, unless ArbCom asks for it. - Hordaland (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Vassyana, and welcome. You write: "...sit down to talk about things in a nice, calm manner, and get a friendly volunteer to help sort things out." Sounds good. But the first half of that will not work without the last half which hopefully soon involves a mentor. Incompatible styles of communication, talking past one another; it's difficult to try to explain it all to people who haven't been involved. We'll need a "friendly volunteer" for many months; there's no point in yet another bandaid when at least therapy and maybe surgery are needed.
Although I can agree with Scuro that your "apples to apples comparison" is not that great, the effect is that.
If you do decide on a ban, it must include the talk pages and must be long enough for MedCollaboftheWeek to come and work their magic on the article(s). Thank you, - Hordaland (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments to scuro
  1. You write: "...the remedy of a mentor was for citations only." You are, of course, correct that the original Remedy #3 (of 00:03 UTC, 14 July) included at a minimum "guidance on Wikipedia's sourcing and citation guidelines." We are here writing on a page entitled Request to amend prior case: ADHD, and the request regarding Remedy 3 specifies: and observation of and assistance with effective communication on talk pages. This request for amendment is why we are here.
  2. You mention mediator/mediation many times. It is unclear to me if you want both a mentor and a mediator. The mentor is a given, and if the above amendment request goes through, one mentor should be enough as far as I can see.
  3. You write: "I am worried that ... that things will slide back into predictable patterns if we don't do something now." Now there's something we all can agree on. - Hordaland (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hurrah! I feel like we all should go out and celebrate.
Thanks Xavexgoem and scuro. My amendment request still stands (see revised version above), as help with effective communication on talk pages should solve most of our problems. And as Unionhawk put it below: "The effective communication and observation portion should be assumed just from mentorship alone."
  • Answering Unionhawk. "closure? sure, why not?," you wrote. See above where I've revised the amendment request (Remedy 3). - Hordaland (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

I would like to support what Hordaland has said regarding a mentor. I think that a mentor may be able to help with some of the issues and is a step in the right direction. I would support a topic ban until a mentor has been found as has been proposed by one of the arbitration staff. The problem of repeatedly shouting about fringe, minority and "true concensus" (with original research and no citations) and NPOV is really a continuation of the same WP:DISRUPT. Uninvolved admins sadly read these statements when drama occurs and then think I or others are the problem and are "not seeking consensus", which then tends to lead to drama escalating in unpredictable directions.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Unionhawk

I would have no problems with such additions, however, ideally, the committee will find a mentor before this amendment is added.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 13:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to scuro

Irrelevant. This is mainly intended on... telling the ArbCom to carry out the mentorship portion of the original ruling (which they should do anyway, regardless of any amendment).--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 15:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The effective communication and observation portion should be assumed just from mentorship alone.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 16:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scuro

The proposed change to "amendment 1", seeks the additional restriction that the mentor "observe" and "assist" with "effective communication". It also seeks a topic ban until a mentor has been found. Hordaland's justification for the additions is "delaying tactics" and "his methods of communicating are not conducive to the kinds of cooperation needed to write an encyclopedia". Literaturegeek believes that I am: "shouting", "disruptive", and that I continue to create "original research and no citations". These statements make the assumption that I am purposefully posting extraneous material so as to stop them from doing their job. They are also assuming that my method of communication impedes cooperation. These are all assumptions of "bad faith", and the evidence provided does not at all support the false assumptions made. This could be construed as harassment.

Administrator Nja247 has commented [30] on our behaviour since arbitration: "I think it'd be important to stress what you have done above to me, in that you have tried to find a mentor and that you shouldn't be punished for not succeeding, nor should you be punished for Arb's failure to appoint. Further I can confirm that you have in my opinion tried..." Since arbitration I've gone to great efforts to comply with the arbitration ruling, exceeding expections. Several people were contacted, including Nja247 for mentorship. Nja247 had previously filled sanction proposals against me, yet, I asked him anyways because he knew how to cite properly. Arbitration was notified by e-mail before the deadline that a mentor could not be found. With: Nja247's, Horaland, and Sifaka's help, my citations now are up to standard.

I also took to heart the criticism made of me at arbitration that I did not support my claims. A lot of time was spent proofing the article and then indicating in talk perceived problems with bias and undue weight. Threads were tagged with: "resolved", "unresolved", "done", "not done" or "deadlocked", boxes so it is very easy to see where work needed to be done. [31] [32] [33] Fifteen of these threads require action. I did edit the article but found that once again these edits were reverted or altered, [34] even though other editors had approved them. [35] No proper explanation was given. When edits are not respected, and well researched posts in talk get ignored, it seemed pointless spending time in the normal editing cycle. In such circumstances why is it "intolerable" to ask for mediation and to seek true consensus? Their case is totally based on bad faith assumptions, false accusations, and innuendo.

Amendment 2

Statement by Literaturegeek

I would like this remedy to be altered to where it becomes a blockable violation to try to prevent other editors, wiki projects (eg wiki med, wiki pharm etc) from intervening. Unfortunately it appears that scuro has been trying to avoid the intervention of wiki projects.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Collaboration_of_the_Week#ADHD_stuff Please also remember to read the collapsed discussion as well and to click on my "diffs" on that page. As noted in previous evidence the claims that scuro "drives editors away" is not a new problem or allegation.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence#Scuro.27s_ownership_but_accusing_oponents_of_ownership Another example of trying to get Wiki Med involved,[36] and scuro's evading a direct answer.[37]--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things then reached a head when I made one last attempt to get scuro to support a Wiki Med collaboration,[38], Doc James then also asks a direct question regarding blocking Wiki Med intervention,[39], scuro ignors direct questions and simply character assasinates calling us antipsychistrists.[40] I found this insulting as I take as much issue with antipsychiatry as I believe their agenda is harmful and most of what they say is nonsense or out of context and can be harmful to the general public and do not want to be associated with them. Here is direct link which is also given on wiki project collaboration on doc James talk page.[41]

Reply to Unionhawk

I do not mind Unionhawk trying mediation for content issues and regular drama issues and will accept such a proposal after this urgent issue is dealt with. However, I don't think that blocking wiki projects from editing the article is something we can mediate about.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response to scuro and evidence for arbcom

In the short period since the arbcom ADHD case closed there have been 5 archives on the ADHD talk page in addition to what is on the active talk page. This is an enormous amount of text to expect editors to reply to, it is not surprising with sometimes several sections being created each day that some got "ignored" or the conversation died out, we can't endlessly go back and forth arguing spending several hours or more on ADHD talk pages most nights. We are volunteers, unpaid, have jobs, family and social life to fit into this as well. I personally had to become involved in resolving undue weight and poor referencing format on quinolone antibiotic articles which needed more urgent attention.[42] and [43] (check before and after of articles, major work on refs and content) as well as work on other wiki articles so had less time. I am sure other editors have similar reasons for not responding. Further, much of the disputes scuro raised did not involve edits which I had added originally and I had stated in arbcom that I wanted to back away from the ADHD article. It should be noted that the decision to mark a discussion resolved or unresolved etc is done by scuro rather than someone independent and I felt getting wiki Med involved might help. Having said that if you review the archives there was quite a lot of issues that were resolved, so there has been some progress since arbcom closed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestions are good and I am happy to try dispute resolution and mediation in future. I think a solution is also for scuro to vote to support ADHD Wiki Med collaboration and for us both to agree publicly to be civil. That would really help the situation I feel. I suggest strengthening the ammendments and giving the situation another chance rather than topic ban. We have not reached the stage of needing to resort to topic ban which is an extreme measure. I apologise again for any disruption that I have caused in this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal for resolution to scuro

You have appealed for people to talk to you to work things out and I am happy to try and do this. This could all be worked out and you could prove us all wrong by simply voting to support Wiki Med collab and agree along with I to remain civil. Then we can put all of this behind us. What say you? Would you vote to support ADHD article on Wiki Med collaboration project?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Literaturegeek, I can envision a time in the near future where I would be happy to vote for the article. Scuro the article has been nominated for over a year now and you have been opposing it for almost six months, before I started editing the ADHD pages. The alledged ownership reasons no longer exist as Doc James is seriously restricting his editing on wikipedia and may even have left wikipedia entirely due to drama. No more excuses, no more oppostion, support Wiki Med collaboration please. I am willing to mediate for other issues and I will abide by arbcom rules and recommendations, can you also abide by arbcom which encouraged us to seek input from Wiki Projects by you supporting Wiki Med Collab today. Lets get fresh eyes on the articles by people who diagnose the disorder and treat it. It is all that I ask of you.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made comments on scuro's talk page with the view of resolving the core issues. I see no reason to continue this conversation any further and fill up this ammendment request.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A positive update

Scuro and I have made significant progresss in resolving core issues, see User_talk:Scuro#What_can_be_done and User_talk:Literaturegeek#compromise. I am pleased to report that scuro has signed up to the Wiki Med collaboration project intervention for ADHD with a vote of support,Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Collaboration_of_the_Week#ADHD. We have also both agreed to ways of resolving disputes and finding middle ground. As the main issue of me filing this arbcom ammendment request was because of an ongoing issue of scuro not involving WikiMed I and this is now resolved I see no reason in persuing this ammendment request any further.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel happy that scuro has a mentor now. This should be good when discussing refs and with what is and what is not fringe etc. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Unionhawk

ARRGH!!! *smacks head against keyboard repeatedly*...

Anyway, I just now realized how unclear my position was on this; we do not need to deal punishment (which ArbCom ultimately does), which will be temporary, and then require more and more of these, we need to work something out. Scuro, I appreciate your offer of you, hyperion, and I working something out, but, honestly, mediation would not have worked at all without at least LG of Doc James in the conversation.

Scuro, just know that pushing that an article not become the MCOTW because there are unresolved issues makes no sense; more eyes, voices, opinions, and otherwise, will help tremendously with these issues. You may as well support it! Collaboration from a WikiProject is a good thing, and I'm honestly surprised that after months and 12 !votes, it still hasn't become the MCOTW.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 03:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Key Points
  • We need to work something out, not deal out punishment (this one is directed at Doc James and Literaturegeek)
  • Keeping an article from becoming MCOTW due to problems in it makes no sense; MCOTW≠Medical Selected article (this one is directed at scuro)--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 03:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Side-note

Has scuro (talk · contribs) been assigned a mentor yet? If not, the ArbCom should go about assigning him one.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 03:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good news indeed

It appears that this has been resolved. I would agree with closure.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 17:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scuro

The proposed change in "amendment 2" seeks to specifically single out Scuro with further sanctions. Literaturegeek wants that an "editing restriction" be "placed on Scuro which restricts him from any attempt to stop editors or wiki projects from editing ADHD article or he will be subject to a block of up to a week". She is not specific, but one assumes the restriction would require oversight and approval before I edit any ADHD article. Remedy 7 which is titled, "Editors are encouraged", currently states, "All editors ... area are encouraged to seek outside editorial assistance (by way of a request for comment, or by seeking input from relevant WikiProjects) in resolving the editorial disagreements...". Outside editorial assistance was sought after arbitration, specifically for the The social construct theory which states ADHD is fake. The issue was brought up to determine the proper weighting for this theory. [44] The notion that I do not seek outside assistance is bogus. Literaturegeeks reasons that the remedy must specifically refer to Scuro because, "...Scuro has been trying to avoid the intervention of wiki projects for various reasons..." The assumption is that he doesn't want the article chosen, and that he purposely use behaviours such as "delaying tactics", and "ignoring or arguing around direct questions", to achieve his goal. These are assumptions of "bad faith" and mischaracterizations of the truth. They imply and assume motives and actions of someone of poor character. The notion of poor character is further cemented with additional bogus allegations of wrongdoing, and a dredging up of misrepresented past history. As in the past, this approach is inflammatory and destabilizing. Over the half year there have been many bogus allegations, some serious, [45] [46] some recent. [47].

This dispute is all about the nomination process of the ADHD article to MCOTW article of the week. We need to get some perspective here. Comment was sought and I have responded with my opinion in "good faith" for the betterment of the wiki project. It is an action of "bad faith" to believe that there are sinister motives behind my comments. Collaboration means to work jointly with others. This has been my persistent complaint, that even when I do all that they want of me, true collaboration doesn't happen. To invite others to the page while excluding one from the editing process, is not collaboration. Some may feel that this point does not override a larger goal, but my opinion has merit. Collaboration in cases of disagreement require an earnest attempt at reconciliation. Unionhawk "broke the ice" recently. His mediation request did not mention MCOTW. The simple goals of his mediation request, such as no personal attacks, the mediation request was rejected because it was not supported. This dispute specifically started when Literaturegeek personalized the MCOTW talk page by stating, "you seem to really not want doctors or pharmacologists to review the article..." [48] Had she contacted me to inquire about my concerns, she would have received a respectful and informative answer and something could have been arranged. Instead she posted an administrative block warning on my talk page,[49] which was reported to Xeno. [50]. That led to a major flare up with serious accusations made by LG[51]. The thread ends with a plea for Literaturegeek to commit as I did, to strictly focus on content.[52]

There is no reason why we should be meeting again. They should of: approached me on my talk page, sought a third opinion, tried mediation, or outside advice, for any new problem. How would these contributors determine that they were 100% in the right? With all of these blowups they virtually always seek sanctions before the problem has even been discussed. To restrict me further would be to reward those who don't collaborate and use wiki processes in a harassing manner. It would also punish an individual who has made every effort to improve.--scuro (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hordaland and Literaturegeek - clarify these possible bad faith or bogus allegations

During arbitration over 70 alegations were made. (see itemized list after the third paragraph of link) No one had to account for any of the bogus or bad faith allegations made. Abd who alleged that I "drove editors away" never responded to evidence which refuted his claim. LG continues to make this claim. The following allegatons below have been made during this request. I request that Horaland and Literaturegeek substantiate their claims or they recant what has been posted.

  • "delaying tactics"
  • "his methods of communicating are not conducive to the kinds of cooperation needed..."
  • "disruptive"
  • "trying to block collaboration"
  • "drives editors away" - (this allegation has been throughly refuted and Literaturegeek is aware of this)--scuro (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hordaland2

My apologies for mispelling your name once more, that really shouldn't of happened. Thank you for striking out the accusation of "delaying tactics".

In this forum communication is happening. Concerns are raised, they are considered, and they are responded to. That is all that I have ever asked for. There are are 15 threads in these links which require action.[53] [54] 8 Threads are tagged with "not done", "deadlocked", or "unresolved"...for easy reference. These threads, along with my many appeals for mediation, a meeting of the minds, etc...demonstrate someone seeking collaboration. You have yet to demonstrate that I am, "trying to block collaboration", evidence please.

The diffs you have provided demonstrate my requests for further action: "...when those who hold opposing viewpoints can agree upon something...Will you attempt that with me...?" and "I would really appreciate it if you folks came to the table". Have I become more insistent with my requests? Yes I have. It's been over a year since I have sought collaboration, and it is only with Unionhawk that I have seen the first positive movement. There is an easy solution here to improve the general decorum. As two reasonable people we could get this done tonight. I pledge to answer questions on the talk page and resolve differences by whatever means necessary. It would be very much appreciated if you could also make that pledge. It would be great to get this behind us and move forward.--scuro (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hordaland3

Yes I agree with you, these Amendment requests are all about my comments at MCOTW. Could you please point out on my talk page, or give a direct link whereby any of you spoke to me, off of the MCOTW talk page, or tried to seek common ground on in any other fashion such as mediation, on this issue? Yes, I agree that there was spirited discussion on the MCOTW, but even there the responses typically were an admonishment of my opinion. Also I asked you previously for evidence of my unwillingness to collaborate since arbitration. Could you please provide that evidence? Thank you.--scuro (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Literaturegeek2

"If you follow the link to the MCOTW talk page and click on the diffs over there you will see a dispute on Doc James's talk page where you tried successfully to delay (and actually stop) the MCOTW. I don't need to submit any more evidence I feel". I looked Literaturegeek....I must of missed it, I even took a look on Doc Jame's talk page. Can you provide a direct link? Also can you provide evidence, post arbitration, for the "disruptive" accusation? Finally, the "driving editors away" accusation was refuted, and Abd refused to respond to the refuting evidence that I provided, even though I asked him to do so several times. If you are making the same accusation again, could you please respond to the refuting evidence given at Arb Com? Thank you. --scuro (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statements by Jmh649

I am no longer actively editing Wikipedia and therefore have nothing to add that has not already been said.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

choosing participants
  • Why were other involved persons not notified?--scuro (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
looking at past remedies and the current actions of all participants
  • I may like to add my own amendment request(s), could I simply add them to the other two requests?--scuro (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you may. But the priority is to enact the mentorship remedy. I'm aware of the discussion here, and I'm puzzled by the claim that you contacted us to tell us you had failed to find a mentor. I've searched the arbitration mailing list archives and found nothing. Did you contact us somewhere on-wiki? If you e-mailed us, was it the mailing list or an individual arbitrator? Could you tell us the date you sent the e-mail (if it was an e-mail), and e-mail us now so we can cross-reference the e-mail address? Carcharoth (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Just a gentle reminder that I've been given permission to make further amendments, if I choose to do so, before this request closes. I understand that there is a process, and that certain things must get done first.--scuro (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • "been given permission" where? when? by whom? - Hordaland (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Read the two posts above.--scuro (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Sincere apologies, Scuro. A temporary (I hope!) failure of my reading ability. - Hordaland (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Not a problem at all...no worries. Apology accepted!--scuro (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have forwarded the original e-mail back to this address arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org, as I was requested to do. That e-mail was sent on August 8th at 2:57 pm.--scuro (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing yet. Could you send it to my e-mail address, which is listed at WP:ARBCOM (or click the e-mail user link at my user page)? Thanks. Once we are in touch, we can work out what went wrong here. Carcharoth (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The forwarded e-mail has just been sent.--scuro (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks. Just noting here for the record that after several test e-mails and trying to work out what was wrong, it seems that the problem has been fixed. It was a problem at our end, as far as I can tell, so I'm going to state here that Scuro did send us an e-mail stating that he had failed to find a mentor, and that it never reached us through no fault of his own. As a consequence, the bit about ArbCom needing to assign a mentor should be considered to start now, rather than on 8th August. I've made some enquiries, and I'm hopeful that a mentor can be sorted out. If all the parties to this request could take that into consideration, and Scuro's comment below, that would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Would that consideration extend the date of mentorship paste August 8th 2010?--scuro (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • If the mentorship works out and is productive, the end date is not really a concern. Even after the mentorship ends, you are likely to want to go to that person for advice anyway. It should be seen as an opportunity to be welcomed, rather than a restriction to be ended. I would suggest waiting until July or August next year, and considering this question then. Carcharoth (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a request not to act until the facts have been examined
  • A plea to the administrators - Can I be allowed to fully respond to bogus accusations before assumptions are made, and actions are taken? There has been a lengthy history of bogus accusations having being made against me. That most recently happend last week when literaturegeek accused me of harbouring a meat puppet. No injunction is needed. Ask and I will do what is required.--scuro (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would be best is for you to not edit in this topic area until a mentor is arranged (which should be shortly, as I've noted). I think, from what you've said, that you will agree to such a voluntary restriction, but could you confirm that please? Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no problem with committing to a fixed date, say Oct 1st., and would agree to extensions if requested. Is this reasonable?--scuro (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The need for a voluntary editing restriction of any length should be examined. There was very little editing of the topic pages recently. The issue is whether giving an opinion at MCOTW, where it is requested, is a behaviour that should be sanctioned. Key claims by the complainants appear to be bogus, and an editing restriction also discourages mediation and collaboration by giving the parties who have avoided these processes, what they want. In effect, we have moral hazard. I will not edit until I have been given permission to do so.--scuro (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
serious unaddressed behaviours
          • The reason I asked you to confirm your offer of a voluntary restriction was to put things in a holding pattern until a mentor could be sorted out. Hopefully that will happen before 1st October, but if not, then we will take things at that point and see what can be done. Carcharoth (talk) 06:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing from the amendment requests, are a number of serious unaddressed behaviours which need to be dealt with. They include the repeated assumption of bad faith, the repeated personalization of issues, and repeatedly making of false accusations. It is my opinion that beyond edit warring, these behaviours have led to virtually all of our difficulties in the collaborative process. Would it be acceptable to deal with the first two amendment requests and then look at these issues?--scuro (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also I'd like arbitration to consider if this particular Amendment request is a form intentional or unintentional harassment. I'd like the committee to consider this because: i)of the assumptions of bad faith, ii)the reasoning behind bringing such an inconsequential case forward, iii)and that no other means of dispute resolution or even direct communication was attempted for this specific issue.--scuro (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further, arb com should consider that even when asked to do so, those who made allegations, "failed to even to attempt to substantiate allegations of misconduct levelled at other editors".--scuro (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
they seek sanctions only?

During arbitration there were about a dozen direct appeals at seeking some solution through other means then sanctions [55]. Every appeal was either rejected or ignored. There was not one instance that I can recall when any of the complaints had come to the table pre-arbitration. Recently I appealed to Literaturegeek, "...the behaviour can simply stop if we all commit to STRICTLY focus on content. I commit to that right now... can others not also commit to a new beginning"?[56] She never responded. During this AR Hordaland was asked, "as two reasonable people we could get this done tonight. I pledge to answer questions on the talk page and resolve differences by whatever means necessary. It would be very much appreciated if you could also make that pledge. It would be great to get this behind us and move forward"[57]. Literaturegeek or Hordaland, can you speak to this blanket avoidance of any sort basic agreement, or any form of collaboration?--scuro (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any progress?

It's almost a week since we've heard from member(s) of ArbCom. Is anything happening? Thanks. - Hordaland (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. We were waiting to hear back from possible mentors. Should be an update within a few days. The voluntary restriction from Scuro above should be enough in the meantime. It would be appreciated if further comments to this amendment request could be kept to a minimum. There is plenty here for us to look at when we get round to it. Carcharoth (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana's request

I open to discussion here, I've always been open to any sort of process. But, I don't at all agree that this is an apples to apples comparison. Still, I am very willing to examine things and see where my perspective could be wrong. I am willing to discuss matters in the most civil way, using any ground rules, or any process chosen.--scuro (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to also add that I would enter any such process: unconditionally, with total good faith, looking forwards, and seeking solutions.--scuro (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hordaland quotes Vassyana recently as stating, "...sit down to talk about things in a nice, calm manner, and get a friendly volunteer to help sort things out." I didn't see that post but I agree with it. Hordaland believes that a mentor is needed for me before discussion begins. May I gently remind everyone that the remedy of a mentor was for citations only. Talk to me...it really hasn't been tried in the past. I do so much want to work together, it is all I have ever wanted on the articles. From my perspective we could have great progress quickly. It would be very simple to commit to basic tenants like, commenting on content only and not the contributor. We can personally commit to the remedies of arbitration. That would be a huge first step, and stop most of the blow-ups. From there we can discuss past issues with guidance. I am open to doing this anyway desired, the only thing I would like to see is an intimate conversation. I would like to request that initially, it would be a one on one discussion. It can be with Hordaland, or Literaturegeek, or whomever. It would be my opinion that this option would see the quickest progress in the friendliest manner.--scuro (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Literaturegeek, I can envision a time in the near future where I would be happy to vote for the article. If we can, lets look forward and get some things done. Is it okay that the discussion is between us only? Can we agree to strictly follow the arbitration remedies, and basic tenants of wikipedia? If we are at that point then we could get off this page and go to med cab.
I can extend a peace offering to to you. At med cab, if a mediator at any time thought that I should nominate the article, I would do so.--scuro (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LG, do you think now is the best time for a Wiki Med community collaboration on the article? I am under a voluntary editing restriction, we are in the middle of arbitration amendment request where we have both been threatened with a topic block, and animosity still exists. Wouldn't a better time be when we are on the same page and the dust has settled? I did offer to put this in the mediator's hands. Is that not a reasonable solution? Let the mediator choose at what point he thinks we should move on to editing together, or if he is so inclined, to request that I sign on right away to the Wiki Med collaboration. If I went back on my word and refused to sign when requested, wouldn't you have excellent evidence of a disruptive editor?--scuro (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My offer to sign on is unconditional, and not restricted by a time limit. If at any point a mediator decides that I should sign on, I will do so. Yes, I agree, trying to solve things on someone's talk page is a great idea for avoiding conflict.
At this point I would prefer mediation. There is a little too much looking backwards happening, and I believe a mediator would be helpful to determine goals and keep us focused on future objectives. But, perhaps you have excellent reasons why you think a talk page would be better. If so, I'm all ears. In the meantime can get two things done now? Lg, can we agree that this discussion is restricted to ourselves, and possibly a mediator. Can we also agree to strictly follow the arbitration remedies and basic wiki tenants?--scuro (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't put words in my mouth. Are you worried that this could all go around in circles for an "unlimited" amount of time, and that wiki med will never be able to fix content disputes that we have now? If so, tell me what you want, and tell me how to get it, addressing my concerns. You can even pinpoint which of my concerns or requests, you believe to be totally unreasonable, and I may very will act upon your observations. I am worried that there are major ongoing behaviour issues that have not been addressed, and that things will slide back into predictable patterns if we don't do something now. I would really like to make amends and put this all behind us. What solutions do you offer, how would it get done, and what are you willing to agree to right now?--scuro (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What if everything I have said was in good faith? I can offer to sign up if that is what stops you from committing to anything. What can you agree to? How do you picture us making a major step forward to collaborative editing?--scuro (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
stop poking each other with sharp sticks

Hordaland, what I have posted recently is a very sincere attempt at reconciliation. I'd ask you kindly from picking at these posts and rehashing old issues. We all know what your proposed amendment states. You believe it to be very necessary, I believe it based on bogus accusations and bad faith assumptions, and without merit. Can we leave it at that? If the administrators believe that my talk page behaviour since arbitration requires further sanctions, then so be it. Carcharoth has asked us not to post further material and I'd ask you most kindly to follow his request.--scuro (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear clerk.

Do not archive this amendment request. There are still important long standing issues that have never been addressed, and at a bare minimum these issues have to be examined. Guidance from the arbitration committee has been asked for, and I await their reply.--scuro (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to inform the committee that I've picked up Scuro as his mentor (User_talk:Scuro#Mentorship...) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Update

Since it sounds like this amendment request may be closed soon, I'll give an update. LG and I did make some progress in discussions, but they stopped a few days ago. We have agreed to follow the tenants of undue weight, and we have also agreed that discussion is useful. There still are several significant content issues that need to be agreed to, but more importantly behaviour issues that need to be ironed out. False accusations and bad faith assumptions have been a part of every completed sanction process with these editors, and it was a part of this amendment request. This should not be allowed to happen, and it must stop. This is abuse. I fear this behaviour may continue because neither LG or Hordaland have made a commitment to stop these practices, nor have they committed to focus strictly on content. This should be addressed within this amendment request with more amendments, as I was given permission to do, or it can be done some other way. But it is time to deal with this.--scuro (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

  • This looks almost stale, I'll be archiving in a day or two. MBisanz talk 12:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't archive as we need to look closer into the situation and make further comments. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Noting here that Literaturegeek is happy for the request to be closed. I have asked Hordaland and Unionhawk if they are also happy for it to be closed. Doc James (Jmh649)'s statement indicates no need for a follow-up there. Carcharoth (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • These two amendments should be merged. I've now done that. Carcharoth (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Response to amendment 1 (from Hordaland): I agree that such an amendment (as proposed by Hordaland) is needed. I will propose a motion to that effect in a few minutes after input from other arbitrators and Scuro. Carcharoth (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Response to amendment2 (from Literaturegeek): This is a problem that shouldn't have arisen. Such collaboration is indeed to be encouraged, but I would suggest delaying such until a mentor is found for Scuro, or an injunction passed topic-banning him until a mentor is found. I intend to propose such an injunction, in relation to the amendment filed by Hordaland. Carcharoth (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for the delay in getting back to this. The original amendment asked what was being done about Scuro's mentorship remedy, and I am afraid to say that the editors I contacted to ask if they were willing to mentor Scuro have not responded, or are too busy to take this on. I have made one final attempt, but failing that, I am minded to proceed with the double topic ban remedy proposed by Vassyana below. Before that step is reached, could I ask that in the next few days the editors who have posted above make some effort to further refactor and reduce and summarise what they have said, and stick to the focus of the amendment request. Please do not add yet more text to read. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Formally acknowledging here that Xavexgoem is now mentoring Scuro. I am leaving a note at Scuro's talk page to remind Scuro and Xavexgoem of the exact wording used here. Tomorrow, I will try and work out if there is anything else here that still needs addressing. There were, I believe, plans for a WikiProject Medicine collaboration on the ADHD article. Hopefully the parties to this request can move ahead with that if it has not already taken place. It would probably be a good idea for Scuro and Xavexgoem to sort out the terms of the mentorship before Scuro gets too involved in anything related to the ADHD article. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting here my awareness too of the failure of the mentorship (no fault on the part of Xavexgoem) and endorsing Vassyana's approach below. All comments should now be made at the motions page, not here. There is more than enough text here to read. Statements made by the parties at the motion should be brief and limited and directly relevant to the proposed motions. Carcharoth (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm reviewing this matter now, and will respond later today. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will note that the extensive wall of text here (and in linked areas) makes it clear that some assistance is required. The ideal solution would be for everyone involved to stop poking each other with sharp sticks, sit down to talk about things in a nice, calm manner, and get a friendly volunteer to help sort things out. This is hardly a one-sided situation and arguing about whose poking is worse is anything but helpful. In my view, LG and scuro both seem to have personalized this dispute, continued derailing discussions with personal commentary, and persist in exagerrating (if not outright misrepresenting) the comments of the other and other editors. I'm inclined to topic ban both of you from the ADHD topic area to allow room for other editors to breathe and work on the topic. I am open to persuasion that both editors can follow the ideal solution I mention above, but I am highly skeptical at this point. Vassyana (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The situation seems to have improved. Scuro has a mentor. I am glad to have my skepticism proved wrong. I hope that this productive trend continues and look forward to the improvement of our coverage in the topic area. Vassyana (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the failure of my hopes for an improved climate moving forward and continuing personalization of this dispute, I have proposed motions topic banning Scuro and Literaturegeek. Vassyana (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=321059486"