Carcharoth (talk | contribs) →Further discussion: update |
|||
Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
****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. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 16:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC) |
****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. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 16:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
*****The forwarded e-mail has just been sent.--[[User:Scuro|scuro]] ([[User talk:Scuro|talk]]) 02:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC) |
*****The forwarded e-mail has just been sent.--[[User:Scuro|scuro]] ([[User talk:Scuro|talk]]) 02:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
******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. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 00:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*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.--[[User:Scuro|scuro]] ([[User talk:Scuro|talk]]) 01:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC) |
*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.--[[User:Scuro|scuro]] ([[User talk:Scuro|talk]]) 01:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
**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? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 00:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==== Clerk notes ==== |
==== Clerk notes ==== |
||
:''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' |
:''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' |
||
==== Arbitrator views and discussion ==== |
==== Arbitrator views and discussion ==== |
||
*These two amendments should be merged. I've now done that. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 11:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC) |
*These two amendments should be merged. I've now done that. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 11:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
*:''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 <s>in a few minutes</s> after input from other arbitrators and Scuro. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 10:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC) |
*:''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 <s>in a few minutes</s> after input from other arbitrators and Scuro. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 10:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
*:''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. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 11:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC) |
*:''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. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 11:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
* |
*I'm reviewing this matter now, and will respond later today. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|♥♥♥]] 10:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
---- |
---- |
Revision as of 00:03, 23 September 2009
Requests for amendment
Request to amend prior case: ADHD
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- 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)
- 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
- Hordaland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator, filed first amendment)
- scuro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Literaturegeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (filed second amendment)
- Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Unionhawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Amendment 1
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Scuro_placed_under_mentorship
- Desired modification (additions in bold):
- 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
- The situation on Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and related pages including Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Week (MCOTW) is at present much the same as it was this spring, before arbitration. Scuro talks (and sometimes lectures) about collaboration, true consensus building, a new start/beginning, NPOV, undue weight, the ball is in your court, be willing to come to the table, etc., but in a way that most other editors see as delaying tactics or otherwise not constructive. When he talks about "majority opinion" and "minority opinion", it is plain that he feels that he represents the majority while most other editors belong to a minority or fringe. Scuro has knowledge and views which I believe should be heard but his
methodsstyle of communicating is not conducive to the kinds of cooperation needed to write an encyclopedia. I would like to see him learn from a very good and patient mentor; without that, the situation is again intolerable. Since Scuro states that the mentor (he calls it "mediator") should only be concerned with citations, the requested amendment is necessary. Quote: "By the way I've followed all of my obligations with regards to arbitration, and the mediator was specifically for citations only."
- 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.
- 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Amendment 2
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Editors_encouraged
- My desired remedy would be,,, An editing restriction has been 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 for up to a week.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
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 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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 Scuro
The other parties in the initial ArbCom case are largely unaffected by these ammendments.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 02:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Scuro
LG's responses have significantly changed. My rough draft will need a lot more work now. It may well not get done today. --scuro (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Further discussion
- Why were other involved persons not notified?--scuro (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- I have forwarded the original e-mail back to this address arbcom-llists.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)
- 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)
- The forwarded e-mail has just been sent.--scuro (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- The forwarded e-mail has just been sent.--scuro (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- I have forwarded the original e-mail back to this address arbcom-llists.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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Clerk notes
- This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
- These two amendments should be merged. I've now done that. Carcharoth (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- 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 minutesafter input from other arbitrators and Scuro. Carcharoth (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC) - 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)
- 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
- I'm reviewing this matter now, and will respond later today. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)