Literaturegeek (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
;Statements by parties (500 words or fewer) |
;Statements by parties (500 words or fewer) |
||
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. --[[User:Scuro|scuro]] ([[User talk:Scuro|talk]]) 20:34, 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. What one calls "digging claws into each other", another would call giving ongoing evidence of uncivilness and abuse. It would be an impressive list if I chronicled every transgression over the last 3 months. The accusations have been extraordinary and amazingly they continue here at AR. I have made every effort to make administrators aware of this but it has all been ignored. I understand that arb com wants peace on these pages, but I ask arb com to consider the facts and evidence, and not the narrative so oft presented. |
|||
I have tried very hard here. I have made a significant concession and I have changed considerably in a year. 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. --[[User:Scuro|scuro]] ([[User talk:Scuro|talk]]) 20:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
===Literaturegeek response=== |
===Literaturegeek response=== |
Revision as of 01:50, 21 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.
For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority. | |
Active Arbitrators:
|
Inactive Arbitrators:
Recused Arbitrators: |
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)
- — Coren (talk) 22:44, 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)
- — Coren (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose
-
- Abstain
-
- Recuse
- Discussion by Arbitrators
- Adding a more lengthy comment here to explain to the parties why I've supported these motions. The original case said this: "All editors editing within the topic area are reminded to remain civil in their interactions with other editors, and avoid personalising content disputes. Passed 11 to 0, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)" Then at a clarification request less than two weeks later I said the following: "I would urge scuro and literaturegeek and other parties to the case to work together, rather than trying to test or explore the boundaries of the case decision. I note that one arbitration enforcement request has already been filed. If that is needed, sure, but please try and focus on the article content and its sources, and not each other's behaviour. This was made clear in the case, and should be made clear each time further requests are filed. If large numbers of frivolous requests are filed, indicating that editors are looking at each other's behaviour, rather than working on article content, new restrictions may need to be imposed. Carcharoth (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)" Some time elapsed before the mentorship issue came up, and it was initially thought that this had potential. However, reviewing User:Scuro/Mentorship and User talk:Scuro/Mentorship, and some of the recent discussions pointed out by Literaturegeek in various places, while there is some potential there, all too often things would get bogged down again with personalised comments about the other editors, rather than focusing on article content. That, ultimately, and the failure to either work together or disengage, is why a topic ban is the option I am supporting here for both editors. If other editors on that article argue with each other and don't work on it productively, then more topic bans might be needed, and even an article probation. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk notes
- Parties notified. MBisanz talk 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- As it is currently passing, the Motion will probably be archived sometime around 22:44, 22 October 2009. MBisanz talk 01:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- List of parties notified
- Literaturegeek (talk · contribs)
- Scuro (talk · contribs)
- Statements by parties (500 words or fewer)
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. What one calls "digging claws into each other", another would call giving ongoing evidence of uncivilness and abuse. It would be an impressive list if I chronicled every transgression over the last 3 months. The accusations have been extraordinary and amazingly they continue here at AR. I have made every effort to make administrators aware of this but it has all been ignored. I understand that arb com wants peace on these pages, but I ask arb com to consider the facts and evidence, and not the narrative so oft presented.
I have tried very hard here. I have made a significant concession and I have changed considerably in a year. 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
- Background
I feel that it is unfair that arbitrators have voted based on no evidence and not waiting for evidence to be presented. What is the evidence for this topic ban? Can some diffs be provided? I made an extensive effort on my talk page to resolve conflicts with scuro.User_talk:Literaturegeek#compromise
Scuro himself said, I am getting somewhere with LG. A meeting of the minds could solve this.
Hordaland also stated this,Meanwhile, L is showing patience worthy of sainthood -- just hope s/he can keep it up....
- 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)
- Please show me recent evidence/diffs in context outside of arbcom where I personalised things or dug claws in. Nothing could be further from the truth. When I criticise scuro in arbcom that is because this is like an online court where allegations and criticisms are made.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- One question
I would like arbcom staff who are voting, to reply with either yes or no as to whether they have read my talk page interactions with scuro?User_talk:Literaturegeek#compromise If not then what is the topic ban based on?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Question for Carcharoth
Have you read all of this User_talk:Literaturegeek#compromise? If you have not then I feel that you are not looking at the evidence in context.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- An offer
I had since the last ammendment request made a decision to self impose a topic ban or at least severely restrict my editing on the ADHD articles. I have not edited any of the ADHD articles since the ammendment request so I think this is another reason why the topic ban is unjustified. Even though I feel that an injustice is being done, I am willing for the good of the community self impose a voluntary topic ban, which when the voluntary topic ban expires I will then self impose an indefinate editing limiting restriction where I only contribute to the articles OR the article talk pages say one edit per week or one day per week. I am willing to accept recommendations from the arbcom of the nature of a voluntary topic ban. If a violation occurs then arbcom could then make it an enforced topic ban. I at present protest the enforced topic ban as no evidence convincing evidence has been presented to justify it. That's all folks. The END. Signed a depressed and annoyed,,,,--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Xavexgoem
I was walking a very fine line between Scuro and those opposite of him. It became far far too fine a line to walk. Therefore, I agree with the motions presented here, and likely would have had it been presented when I was still in my capacity.
Lastly: I believe that the action of editors in this dispute are not exclusively designed to provoke, and this was what I was trying to prove to Scuro. That they themselves do not see this in themselves and (particularly) others is imho the central problem here. I believe this despite all other allegations to the contrary; indeed, they reinforce my belief. Take heed. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Of all of the editors I was the one who was reaching out to scuro on my talk page making an earnest effort to resolve things. I still see no justification why I should be singled out for a topic ban.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)