→Other parties advised: -All parties |
Literaturegeek (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
:Uh, news flash: all parties ''do'' believe your conduct is worthy of arb, except you.--[[User:Unionhawk|Unionhawk]] <sup>[[User talk:Unionhawk|Talk]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:EmailUser/Unionhawk|E-mail]]</sup>14:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
:Uh, news flash: all parties ''do'' believe your conduct is worthy of arb, except you.--[[User:Unionhawk|Unionhawk]] <sup>[[User talk:Unionhawk|Talk]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:EmailUser/Unionhawk|E-mail]]</sup>14:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
::Mediation is between different parties not against one party. The mediation between you and I count as dispute resolution of the current issues at hand. Scuro and I have gone thru dispute mediation a number of times. Obviously by the fact that we are here it has not worked.[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 20:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
::Mediation is between different parties not against one party. The mediation between you and I count as dispute resolution of the current issues at hand. Scuro and I have gone thru dispute mediation a number of times. Obviously by the fact that we are here it has not worked.[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 20:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
I for one am not getting involved in any mediation or anything like that as it has already been tried and I believe that you derive some sort of enjoyment out of them hence why you have spent years wasting your own as well as other peoples time. You have been having your recreational disruptive debates for years, several avenues have been tried to change your behaviour. There is a saying on the internet, don't feed the troll. I refuse to feed the troll. You have had years of fun disrupting wikipedia. It is a time to put an end to your games scuro.--[[User:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">Literature</span><span style="color:red">geek</span>]] | [[User_talk:Literaturegeek |<span style="color:orange">''T@1k?''</span>]] 22:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
===Template=== |
===Template=== |
Revision as of 22:58, 24 May 2009
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Motions and requests by the parties
Since mediation or negotiation has never been tried with Scuro, a request of all parties to solve our differences
1) Since we have skipped all the steps to get to Arb. including any attempt to contact me on my talk page to resolve differences, I offer to unconditionally be involved in any mediation or negotiation process that the arbitrators see fit. This may save us all an incredible amount of time and possible sanctions. I most respectfully ask that the fellow parties of this Arb case also consider unconditionally offering to join any negotiation or mediation process that arbitrators see fit. --scuro (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- All right this is enough. I personally have contacted you on your talk page 3 times. There have been 2 mediation cabal cases,
one2 RfCs, andan2 ANI notices. Not to mention the uncountable discussions on the article talk page(s). We have done every step in the mediation process. You have exhausted the patience of me, and probably every other editor on the article(s). This will only waste an incredible amount of time. If you had just listened in the first place (which you have not), we would not be in this mess.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 01:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- All right this is enough. I personally have contacted you on your talk page 3 times. There have been 2 mediation cabal cases,
- Many of us have contacted you on your talk page. Here is LG and I both asking you for references. [1] Many contacts previous to that aswell. Here is your reply to abd offer to help [2] [3]. If you look thru this users page you will see many more examples. [4] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Many forms of DR have been tried (as shown in the opening statement made by a completely uninvolved party). Further a review of the user's talk page will show links to each of these processes, along with my personal requests for sources and a suggestion to take time to cool off. Further in my compromise to a topic ban I explicitly offered supervised editing to the user, where I promised to actively defend inclusion of any properly cited materials he would provide to me. These examples and sources have never been forthcoming, and I cannot see why the user continues to circulate this statement that no attempts to resolve have been tried. Nja247 08:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- response to Nja
As for the several attempts at dispute resolution, the only two mediation processes of the group were filled against Doc James. The other processes were attempts at general sanctions or not true mediation or negotiation processes. If all of parties believe that MY conduct is worthy of an Arb, the responsibility to reconcile differences would be their responsibility. Nja247, in your offer to be helpful, [[5]] you stated, "...I am willing to compromise rather than continue with an outright long term topic ban, which as of now seems as though it's got community support. The compromise would entail you admitting to making mistakes and agreeing to a shorter term ban on things related to ADHD". Your "compromise" sought an admission of guilt. Mediation doesn't start with the mediator telling you that you are guilty, asking for apologies, and proposing a shorter topic ban.--scuro (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Uh, news flash: all parties do believe your conduct is worthy of arb, except you.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail14:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Mediation is between different parties not against one party. The mediation between you and I count as dispute resolution of the current issues at hand. Scuro and I have gone thru dispute mediation a number of times. Obviously by the fact that we are here it has not worked.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I for one am not getting involved in any mediation or anything like that as it has already been tried and I believe that you derive some sort of enjoyment out of them hence why you have spent years wasting your own as well as other peoples time. You have been having your recreational disruptive debates for years, several avenues have been tried to change your behaviour. There is a saying on the internet, don't feed the troll. I refuse to feed the troll. You have had years of fun disrupting wikipedia. It is a time to put an end to your games scuro.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
Proposed final decision
Proposals by Nja247
Editing restrictions
1) Topic ban
As the editor had allowed this disruption to go on for so long, and further had carried the disruption to other parts of the encyclopedia (here). As shown in my statement, the ANI thread for the topic ban closed with 9 clear supports and 3 clear opposes. The user's edits show a single purpose account, and all of my attempts to get the editor to provide sources has failed.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
2) Probation (after or in lieu of a topic ban)
This would ensure that any new edits by the user comply with Wikipedia policy, especially the fundamental policy of the provision of reliable sources, notably when making controversial changes to articles.
Generally: after the topic ban, or during any probation, I would ask (and have asked here & here & here (and multiple others times)) for the editor to take a sample paragraph or sample sentences from the article that they dispute. Then they should submit them with sources and their corrections to a neutral 3rd party for review.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Literaturegeek
Propose ban or block
1) Ban or block from medicine, psychiatry and pharmacology projects
I propose that scuro is banned or blocked from the wiki medicine, psychiatry and pharmacology projects. All avenues have been exhausted and in the process just about every editor who has dealt with scuro is exhausted.
Here are avenues already tried.
- Wikiquette alert
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/jmh649
- Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-09 Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
- Informal attempt at content RfC
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive481#The_ADHD_article_and_Scuro
- Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-05-01_Electroconvulsive_therapy
- Topic ban proposal at ANI
Everyone has had enough of scuro and his disruption on talk pages and also articles. This has been going on for years now and there is no sign of it getting any better. The editing environment is intolerable. I think enough is enough and the time and patience of wikipedians has been drained and a lengthy ban or block is required. I will respect the decision of the ArbCom what ever it may be on this matter.
I just would like a close to this so that I can get back to editing wikipedia and it can become enjoyable again. The sooner this ArbCom is over the better. Thank you for considering my views.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Would support this. Scuro has proven that he is unwilling to follow WP:V and thus should not be editing content on Wikipedia.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Full support. His disruptive editing is mainly focused on ADHD articles, but it does extend elsewhere in other medical articles.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Perhaps not, most of the disruption admitedly has been focused on the ADHD articles. If he is only blocked from ADHD related articles (including methylphenidate and dexamphetamine) I think that most of the disruption would be evaded. I am just thinking of the drama on the electroconvulsive, disease mongering, reliable sources pages etc.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Unionhawk
Proposed principles
Purpose of Wikipedia
1) Wikipedia's purpose is to create high quality, free, encyclopediatic articles, and to resolve any disputes through consensus.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Consensus
2) Consensus involves not only talking, but listening to other editors as well.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Purpose of Talk Pages
3) The purpose of an article talk page is to develop the article. Those who post on the talk page are expected to stay on topic, and behave in a civil manner.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Center of Dispute
1) The dispute in question revolves around the general conduct of scuro.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Scuro
2) Scuro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in article ownership, edit warring, and making uncivil accusations of other editors.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Scuro Topic Banned
1) Scuro is banned from all Psychology related articles and talk pages for {time determined by comments/arbitrators}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Scuro Urged
2) Scuro is urged to collaborate with and listen to other editors, and allow for outside opinion, rather than just his own.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Scuro encouraged
3) Scuro is encouraged to edit other articles as well even after his ban has expired.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
All parties advised
4) All parties are advised to assume good faith, and keep a cool head when dealing with any disruptive editor.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Z
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
General discussion
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: