Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 234: Line 234:
: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.--[[User:Scuro|scuro]] ([[User talk:Scuro|talk]]) 14:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
: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.--[[User:Scuro|scuro]] ([[User talk:Scuro|talk]]) 14:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
::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?--[[User:Scuro|scuro]] ([[User talk:Scuro|talk]]) 15:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
::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?--[[User:Scuro|scuro]] ([[User talk:Scuro|talk]]) 15:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
:::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?--[[User:Scuro|scuro]] ([[User talk:Scuro|talk]]) 15:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 15:56, 3 October 2009

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Aug 2024 03 Sep 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion none 26 July 2024
Clarification request: Appeal methods for Lima Bean Farmer topic ban none none 12 August 2024
Amendment request: German war effort none (orig. case) 13 August 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) none none 17 August 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for amendment

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.

Statement by Hordaland

  • I am aware that Literaturegeek has filed a request regarding another remedy in the same case. That one and mine may be combined, if that is agreeable to the Committee and other parties.
Thank you, Carcharoth, for combining the two requests! - Hordaland (talk) 11:12, 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) even though their names were not included here. - 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 “in a way that most other editors 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.) "his methods style of communicating is not conducive to the kinds of cooperation needed..."
This point is related to the other two. 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 --“Horaland [should be Hordaland] 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 is 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 undefined 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) or, at least, stop activity which will keep them away. Many, 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 specific issue. --Hordaland (talk) 08:15, 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. Maybe green apples compared to red apples?
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]

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, that he "sometimes lectures", and that these lectures are a form of "delaying tactics", which are not "not constructive". Further Hordaland states, "his methods of communicating are not conducive to the kinds of cooperation needed to write an encyclopedia". Literaturegeek believes that I am "shouting" by generally not following wiki conventions, and that I continue to be "disruptive". 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. Literaturegeek also makes the false accusation that I do not suport what I state, "with original research and no citations".

Administrator Nja247 has commented [1] 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, and I have personally been unimpressed with LG's recent behaviour".

Since arbitration I've gone to great efforts to comply with the arbitration ruling, exceeding that which was expected of me. 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. [2] [3] [4] A number of these threads were ignored. I did edit the article but found that once again these edits were reverted or altered, [5] even though other editors had approved them. [6] 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 wrong to ask for mediation and to seek true consensus? There are very serious problems with communication. Contributors have avoided any attempt at a meeting of the minds through mediation or simply communicating on talk pages.--scuro (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reply to Unionhawk

I understand where you are coming from Unionhawk. If only the amendment was changed then Scuro would have a good mentor, with strict guidance. Then Scuro would sign onto MCOTW, the mentor would make him more palatable, and then the article and everything would be perfect. :) In all honesty I've been frustrated to such a degree that a good mentor sounds good. The one thing I would like to point out to you is that articles are not static...permanently fixed in time. The ground particularly under the ADHD article is not stable. People have taken issue with my "broken record" routine...true consensus blah blah blah, mediation, collaboration, etc etc etc. But that is the only way to stability and real neutrality. It was good of you to make the attempt recently at mediation, it was very much appreciated. Think outside of the box to achieve that which you think will help the project, you will always have "my ear". Trying to get what's wanted, the way it's being done at this request is a big gamble, and this type of approach will backfire sooner or later. I take no issue with having a mentor, I take great issue with changing the amendments based on the quality of evidence presented, the reasoning behind the proposed changes, and the total lack of process attempted before these requests were presented to arb com.--scuro (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 for various reasons such as we must find consensus first, delaying tactics, implying it is too dramatic for wiki med when an admin asks if it is "safe", ignoring or arguing around direct questions about if he wants to involve wiki projects and so on. Please pass remedies to go along with this finding, preferably to enforce it. See my evidence below. Sincerely.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Reply to scuro

I contacted people based on whether they were involved in the ADHD discussion on the wiki Med collaboration project as well as ADHD dispute in general. It wouldn't make any sense to include editors who were not involved in the discussion at wiki med collaboration.Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Collaboration_of_the_Week#ADHD--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:46, 20 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.[7] and [8] (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.

I originally linked to the Wiki Med collaboration of the week above with regard to scuro trying to block collaboration of wiki med project, but this text was recently moved to the talk page so here is the link to that content there.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,[9] and scuro's evading a direct answer.[10]--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary and context for arbcom

To put things in context how this drama reached a head, I ask scuro to support a Wiki Med collaboration,[11], Doc James then also asks a direct question regarding blocking Wiki Med intervention,[12], scuro ignors direct questions and simply character assasinates calling us antipsychistrists.[13] 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. To label us fringe or minority in thinking whilst trying desperately to avoid intervention from independent health professionals was hypocritical and a logical fallacy as well as insulting. If scuro is mainstream and we are minority why not let independent healthcare experts review the article? I think that it is because he knows the meta-analysis, systematic reviews etc will not be labeled fringe by Wiki Med. Ironically in an unrelated incident I was recently I was accused of working for drug companies, well not directly but promoting one of their products and had to defend myself.Talk:Zaleplon I thought about going to arbcom for enforcement but thought, nah I will give scuro just a twinkle level 4 warning for personal attacks for now, rather than ask for block. I pretty much kept my cool, at this point, then scuro went to xeno's page,User_talk:Xeno where I was portrayed in a not very nice light. The drama also spilled onto my talk page,User talk:Literaturegeek and brought in lots of people who I had never ever met before in my life judging me and passing opinion on drama they knew nothing of the background to. My patience pushed to the limit and exhausted from all the typing on ADHD page I started to find keeping my cool very difficult and then I being not without sin messed up and made incorrect accusations about hyperion and things escalated and became irritable with other editors who i perceived to be unfairly judging the situation. Whilst hyperion admited knowing scuro from ADHD online forum, he said he has not interacted with him off of wikipedia for over 2 years now. I accept his explaination and have apologised. Then we ended up back here in arbcom. The END. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue at present for the ongoing drama is blocking Wiki projects such as Wiki Med.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another reply to scuro

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.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to scuro's literaturegeek2

I stated before you said that that "I would like to close this debate here" as other uninvolved admins had suggested that we stop going back and forth. So I ended the discussion as requested by admin. I do wonder if you made that comment knowing I would not reply as I had stated I was ending the discussion as requested. I had already said here that I was happy to work things out,[14] so why would I need to keep saying it? Also I spend my time editing wikipedia and focusing on content and addressing content concerns, so you keeping saying about focusing on content, I have to wonder why you keep saying that and similar phrases. Scuro all evidence and diffs is the conversation on this page.Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Collaboration_of_the_Week#ADHD_stuff. Arbcom can review the discussion on the wiki collab, don't worry if you for whatever reason can't see it. Here is direct link which is also given on wiki project collaboration on doc James talk page.[15] Please also stop going back and forth, forcing me to reply. You are already well over 1,000 word limit and you are forcing me to go over the word limit. My evidence has been submitted, let arbcom review it and come to their own conclusions.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Vassyana

I disagree that the solution is to topic ban but I have taken on board your constructive criticisms and suggestions. If you review the archives following the ADHD arbcom both scuro and I were making good progress. The solution I feel is for Wiki Med to become involved. As I and scuro have personalised things, then perhaps including an amendment which clearly states personalising disputes (including uncivilness or personal attacks) can result in a block for up to a week would be a more fair and more productive ammendment as well as my suggested ammendment regarding involving outside input. With respect I think that a topic ban is over the top and unnecessary in my view and I do not believe that the evidence against me justifies this. I do however, apologise for personalising things when I became irritated at Wiki Med intervention being derailed. I just noticed something which I did not reply to, scuro alledged he was called mentally ill, I have not and nor have I seen anyone say or imply that, so it must have been before I became involved in ADHD articles by another editor.

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 would have prefered if it was voted on today but if you would prefer to leave it until arbcom is finished and dust is settled then I guess I can wait. I would prefer that in future we try and work things out on our user talk pages before resorting to Mediation callaboration. How does that sounnd?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:38, 3 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]

Statement by Scuro

There is only one reason that we are back together with the arbitration committee. Horaland 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. [16] This most recent dispute is all about the nomination process of the ADHD article to MCOTW article of the week, and my recent comments with regards to this nomination. We need to get some perspective here. What I have stated at MCOTW is my opinion. MCOTW is aware that this is my opinion and they are free to make any decision that they choose. Comment was sought and I have responded 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 persistant complaint, that even when I do all that they want of me, true collaboration NEVER happens. 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 and that viewpoint has merit. Collaboration in cases of disagreement would require an earnest attempt to seek common ground. Unionhawk "broke the ice" recently and was the first one to approach me. His mediation request did not mention MCOTW. The simple goals of his mediation request, such as no personal attacks, were rejected by both Literaturegeek and Doc James.

This dispute specifically started when Literaturegeek once again personalized the MCOTW talk page by stating, "you seem to really not want doctors or pharmacologists to review the article..." [17] In a collaborative process one's first response is not to judge harshly. Had she contacted me to inquire about my concerns, she would have received a respectful and informative answer. Perhaps she would have stated her own concerns, such that "she had no time". At that point something could have been arranged to everyone's satisfaction. Instead she posted an administrative block warning on my talk page,[18] which was reported to Xeno.[19]. That led to major flare up with serious accusations. The thread ends with a plea for Literaturegeek to commit as I did, to strictly focus on content. She never responded.

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 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". Outside editorial assistance was actually 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. [20] 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, many, bogus allegations that have ranged from the inconsequential, to more serious allegations such as the insinuation that I am mentally ill. This has continued after arbitration, as we recently saw a few days ago when I was accused of harbouring a "meat puppet". Her posts in this forum are seriously biased. They can be examined in greater detail if desired.

So why did these contributors bring this to arb com? Had they asked on my talk page, I would have explained myself. Had we sought a third opinion or outside advice, I may well have changed my tune and nominated the ADHD article. Instead, many assumptions of bad faith were made. Having avoided every attempt at a meeting of the minds, how would these contributors determine that they were 100% in the right? This is the final problem with all of these blowups. These editors virtually always seek sanctions before the problem has even been discussed. To restrict me further would be to reward those who have avoided collaboration, and punish an individual who has made every effort at collaboration. It would also not be justified in any manner.--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. Abd was recently blocked for three months and was admonished in another case for, "for engaging in personal attacks during this case, and for failing even to attempt to substantiate allegations of misconduct levelled at other editors".

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 responded to. That is all that I have ever asked for. There are are 15 threads in these links which require action.[21] [22] 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
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]


      • 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 [23]. 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"?[24] 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"[25]. 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]
This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=317663784"