Literaturegeek (talk | contribs) |
→Literaturegeek response: explain |
||
Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
Now, may I ask on what grounds am I being topic banned? Is it my fault the mentorship was being abused? Is it my fault that the mentor could not tolerate scuro anymore?--[[User:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">Literature</span><span style="color:red">geek</span>]] | [[User_talk:Literaturegeek |<span style="color:orange">''T@1k?''</span>]] 21:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC) |
Now, may I ask on what grounds am I being topic banned? Is it my fault the mentorship was being abused? Is it my fault that the mentor could not tolerate scuro anymore?--[[User:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">Literature</span><span style="color:red">geek</span>]] | [[User_talk:Literaturegeek |<span style="color:orange">''T@1k?''</span>]] 21:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
:You both have personalized the dispute and continue to dig your claws into each other. I noted very clearly from my intial comment that I was looking towards topic bans, and why. I was allowing both the mentorship and the temporary impovement to prove me wrong, and indeed, I was quite pleased to be proven wrong. I am equally displeased that my good faith was misplaced and things just started going back to the same old patterns. This is admittedly a blunt tool, but the subtler tools for resolving this dispute seem to be fruitless. [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] ([[User talk:Vassyana|talk]]) 21:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
The mentor actually had to ask scuro if the arbcom was about dealing with alledged false accusations by community members,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scuro/Mentorship&diff=319560952&oldid=319558561] presumably because that was all scuro was doing in his mentorship was calling not just I but all of the other editors.--[[User:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">Literature</span><span style="color:red">geek</span>]] | [[User_talk:Literaturegeek |<span style="color:orange">''T@1k?''</span>]] 21:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC) |
The mentor actually had to ask scuro if the arbcom was about dealing with alledged false accusations by community members,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scuro/Mentorship&diff=319560952&oldid=319558561] presumably because that was all scuro was doing in his mentorship was calling not just I but all of the other editors.--[[User:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">Literature</span><span style="color:red">geek</span>]] | [[User_talk:Literaturegeek |<span style="color:orange">''T@1k?''</span>]] 21:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:27, 20 October 2009
Motions
Motion to amend Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking
For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority. | |
Active Arbitrators:
|
Inactive Arbitrators:
Recused Arbitrators:
|
Motion
Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll, Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot#RFC, and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot indicate that Full-date unlinking bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) fulfills the requirement for "a Community approved process for the mass delinking" in "1.3 Mass date linking" and the requirement for "[d]ate delinking bots [performing] in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group" in "2.1 Date delinking bots". The Committee thanks the participants for their efforts and encourages them to continue with their constructive work and consensus building.
- Support
-
- Proposed. This matter seems resolved and it is best not to leave the case hanging as an unknown for the bot operator. Could a clerk please notify the bot operator, BAG, and the main parties from the date delinking case of this proposal? Vassyana (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- So it does. Thank you for all the efforts deployed by everyone to clarify this matter. — Coren (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wizardman 18:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Risker (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Abstain
-
- Recuse
-
- Carrying over my recusal from the case itself. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Discussion
- Clerk notes
Notifications of this motion made to: Bot Approvals Group, User talk:Full-date unlinking bot, User talk:Harej and to all named parties in the Date delinking case. Manning (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Dabomb87
- Response to Rlevse
- Rlevse, could you explain where there has been controversy over dates since the last community-wide discussion on them? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Motions to amend Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD
Note: These motions arose from the tail-end/aftermath of this request for amendment.
Literaturegeek topic banned
Literaturegeek (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all pages, topics, and discussions related to attention-deficit hyperactivity, broadly defined, for twelve months.
- Support
-
- Sadly, it seems this is necessary to give other editors breathing room. I also expect both editors to take this as a final warning about personalizing disputes and related conduct issues. Vassyana (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- The length of the ban I could see changing, but a definite break is needed here for both of the principal editors (the warning signs for Literaturegeek were in the previous requests for clarification/amendment and in the case itself). The clerks have been asked to notify those who need to be notified. Unlike at the request for amendment, I am going to ask the clerks to keep a tight rein on this one. Statements will need to be strictly limited in length and focused on the proposal. No more walls of text. Carcharoth (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wizardman 20:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- — Rlevse • Talk • 20:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose
-
- Abstain
-
- Recuse
- Discussion
Scuro topic banned
Scuro (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all pages, topics, and discussions related to attention-deficit hyperactivity, broadly defined, for twelve months.
- Support
-
- Sadly, it seems this is necessary to give other editors breathing room. I also expect both editors to take this as a final warning about personalizing disputes and related conduct issues. Vassyana (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- The length of the ban I could see changing, but a definite break is needed here for both of the principal editors. The clerks have been asked to notify those who need to be notified. Unlike at the request for amendment, I am going to ask the clerks to keep a tight rein on this one. Statements will need to be strictly limited in length and focused on the proposal. No more walls of text. Carcharoth (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wizardman 20:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- — Rlevse • Talk • 20:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose
-
- Abstain
-
- Recuse
- Discussion by Arbitrators
- Clerk notes
- List of parties notified
- Literaturegeek (talk · contribs)
- Scuro (talk · contribs)
- Statements by parties (500 words or fewer)
I would like to make a statement but first can arbitrators cease voting before I have even had a chance to make a comment? Also I see no evidence justifying my topic ban and I have not even edited the ADHD articles for a while except for reverting vandalism one time. Please give me an hour or so before anyone else votes. I am requesting not insisting.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I haven't edited any of these pages in a month. I would like to see evidence presented of my behaviour since arbitration, and justification why this evidence is of such a severe nature that the behaviour warrants a forced 12 month topic ban. I understand that arb com wants peace on these pages, but I ask arb com to look at the facts and evidence, and not the narrative or complaints so oft presented. I have tried very hard here. I have shut no doors. There should be due process, and the cost of community peace should not come at the grossly unfair treatment of individual contributors. --scuro (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Literaturegeek response
First of all I would like to see diffs for evidence supporting my topic ban from the arbcom and if none are provided then I would like to know how I would go about appealing this decision? It became clear to myself and other editors that scuro was abusing his mentorship by using it as an oportunity to character assassinate the community by saying that we were making things up and basically he is innocent and there is a conspiracy against him.[1],[2] See mentorship, all of scuro's posts to his mentor were character assassinating other editors. I made an extensive effort on my talk page to resolve conflicts with scuro.User_talk:Literaturegeek#compromise
After seeing repeated character assassination of editors and abuse of the mentorship, I decided enough was enough after scuro envoked Jesus Christ to back up what I and others viewed as lies. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scuro/Mentorship&diff=319558561&oldid=319355474 I challenged scuro on this and told him I was not too happy with his conduct and appealed to him on my talk page to change his behaviour.[3] He did not reply to this post (well he has now but at the time he didn't) so I then interjected onto the talk page to protest the abuse of the mentorship and what I saw as an abuse of religion. I was not the first person to protest but actually the last as whatamIdoing and hordaland had already posted on the mentorship talk page defending themselves from scuro's accusations. I also have private emails from the mentor which state that he used our protests as an excuse to get out of the mentorship and felt that scuro should never have been appointed a mentor. The mentor also stated that he was well aware that scuro wwas abusing his mentorship and that I and others were wrong in thinking that he was being biased. The mentorship failed because the mentor simply could not stand scuro for 3 days. I can forward the emails.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Now, may I ask on what grounds am I being topic banned? Is it my fault the mentorship was being abused? Is it my fault that the mentor could not tolerate scuro anymore?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- You both have personalized the dispute and continue to dig your claws into each other. I noted very clearly from my intial comment that I was looking towards topic bans, and why. I was allowing both the mentorship and the temporary impovement to prove me wrong, and indeed, I was quite pleased to be proven wrong. I am equally displeased that my good faith was misplaced and things just started going back to the same old patterns. This is admittedly a blunt tool, but the subtler tools for resolving this dispute seem to be fruitless. Vassyana (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The mentor actually had to ask scuro if the arbcom was about dealing with alledged false accusations by community members,[4] presumably because that was all scuro was doing in his mentorship was calling not just I but all of the other editors.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)