John Vandenberg (talk | contribs) →Scuro topic banned: support |
|||
Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
;A response to Carcharoth |
;A response to Carcharoth |
||
Could you please provide evidence?--[[User:Scuro|scuro]] ([[User talk:Scuro|talk]]) 13:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
===Literaturegeek response=== |
===Literaturegeek response=== |
Revision as of 13:10, 9 November 2009
Motions
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)- Switching to oppose to support alternative. Carcharoth (talk) 03:41, 24 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)
- Oppose
-
- After discussion with the editor himself (see my user talk) and comments from other editors, I believe this is a much less desirable solution than a general probation. Vassyana (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Switching to oppose, but noting that this may still be necessary if conduct and willingness to work with others does not improve. Carcharoth (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Literaturegeek has stated that she's taking a voluntary break from these articles to focus on other editing. If and when she does return to this area, it will hopefully be after a break that will help her to address some of the concerns expressed. As such, I don't think a remedy from us is needed at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Necessity not demonstrated. --bainer (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- John Vandenberg (chat) 12:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Abstain
- Recuse
- Discussion
- I would request that a clerk hold off an additional twenty-four hours before closing over the initial period to allow time for a bit more discussion to take place. Thank you. Vassyana (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Literaturegeek placed under probation
Literaturegeek (talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation for one year. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Literaturegeek repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.
Any restrictions imposed under this measure should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.
- Support
-
- Proposed alternative. This restriction is amenable, even preferable, to Literaturegeek (see [1]) and effectively addresses the conduct concerns. Vassyana (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Noting the concerns about conduct in other areas, and hoping that this broader restriction addresses those concerns. If any admins are looking for enforcement guidance, I would expect this to be applied to all articles Literaturegeek works on, including ADHD. Carcharoth (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- My abstain rationale stands, but move to support. Wizardman 21:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose
-
- I am not convinced that a subjectively applicable sanction is best in this case. — Coren (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Per Coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- The major problems have been an area from which Literaturegeek has now declared she is taking a long break, so hopefully a remedy from us is no longer necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Per Brad; moreover if any specific remedy is needed it would be one prohibiting interaction with Scuro. --bainer (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- John Vandenberg (chat) 12:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Abstain
-
- No strong preference between the two. And not 100% sure of the need although I can see why others do support. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand the reason why it would be acceptable (of course a voluntary restriction would be preferable to a ban), but it puts more weight on administrators, which could cause future issues. Wizardman 20:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- No strong preference between the two. And not 100% sure of the need although I can see why others do support. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- 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)- If Scuro would accept something similar to the general probation proposed for Literaturegeek, I would support it, but at present it seems Scuro is happy to work in other areas, where (as far as I can see from the pre-existing restrictions from the case) he would not be under any restrictions at all, other than those all editors are subject to. Carcharoth (talk) 03:45, 24 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)
- John Vandenberg (chat) 12:44, 9 November 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)
- Recusing from all matters related to this issue. I have now returned to activity, but remain recused in this case. While this does not make any real change in the number of arbitrators required to pass the related motions, I note this simply for the record. Risker (talk) 15:23, 1 November 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)
- When ready for archiving, could a clerk please formally note the brief mentorship that technically fulfilled the conditions of the mentorship remedy in the case, which looks likely to be superseded by a topic ban. Carcharoth (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- List of parties notified
- Literaturegeek (talk · contribs)
- Scuro (talk · contribs)
- Statements by parties (500 words or fewer)
- Statement by Scuro
Where is the evidence presented of my misconduct since arbitration, and justification why this evidence is of such a severe nature that the behaviour warrants a forced 12 month topic ban? Where is the evidence that I have not focused on the article? A lot of my time since arbitration was spent proofing the ADHD article and then indicating on talk page 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. Fifteen of these threads require action. It is hard to work on the article when discussion stops. When other editors focused on the article and getting things done, things got done. One can see the good start and then work stoppage if one follows the progress starting here. [2]My work on that article stopped shortly after the filing of the bogus Amendment request. A great deal of time and energy was spent defending myself against a number of false allegations this request for amendment. As part of that amendment request I have agreed to a voluntary topic ban, I haven't been able work on the article. It has been said that we are, "digging claws into each other", but is that true when one gives ongoing evidence of uncivilness and abuse? I have made every effort to make administrators aware of this 6 month long problem but it has all been ignored. The accusations have been extraordinary and frequent, and amazingly they continued here at AR. I understand that arb com wants peace and "closure" on these pages, but I ask arb com to consider the facts and evidence, and not the narrative so oft presented. The cost of community peace should not come at the hands of the unfair treatment of individual contributors.
It is on the mentorship talk page User talk:Scuro/Mentorshipthat I lost my mentor, it is because of this page that there is a motion of a topic ban. Look who "swamped" that page and made mentoring impossible. Look who refused to make any compromise in effort to get the mentor back. This was a beneficial relationship. Am I to be punished because this avenue turned negative because of other contributors? Also take a look at Literaturegeek's and my one to one communication on Literaturegeek's talk page.[3] We had found common ground on 8 key points, but unfortunately she closed that thread as we started to talk about implementation. I have tried very hard here. I have made a significant concession in signing on to med colab, and I have changed considerably in a year. I have shut no doors. Since arbitrators have: a)answered no question, b)provided nothing in the form of specific differentials of improper conduct that wasn't shown to be completely bogus, c) or offered anything that one would normally take for evidence on wikipedia, I request that arbitrators reject this motion.--scuro (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- A response to Carcharoth
Could you please provide evidence?--scuro (talk) 13:10, 9 November 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
I did personalise things in one post on the talk page of the mentorship and I apologise but I don't think that one post is justification enough for a topic ban. 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)
Comment by Durova
Dopping by after a very long hiatus since initiating RFAR to express full support, in a general sense, for Xavexgoem's judgment. When the Committee heard this case it was already well aware of my opinion regarding mentorship: that it is seldom successful unless it is completely voluntary and not every situation is suitable for it. The Committee had already chosen in several instances to disregard that input, so there was nothing more to do but wait in the hope that events would prove my opinion to have been overly pessimistic. Now is a good occasion to repeat the related concern that Wikipedia has a limited pool of volunteers who have the talent and temperament to mentor well. It is my hope that the Committee will rethink its course before that pool is depleted; there are settings where mentorship can be beneficial, but pursuit of it as a panacea risks diminishing returns. Durova332 02:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree mentorship was in this case sadly was a bad idea.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, one individual who did not proactively seek mentorship, juxtaposed with hostile editors who were more interested in playing to the crowd than in fostering improvement, pretty much doomed the effort from the beginning. Durova332 04:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yea but your view I believe was formed on admin noticeboard initial drama, when the ADHD editors all piled onto there at once. You need I feel to be in the editing environment to understand what is really going on. You are entitled to your views, just saying that I respectfully disagree.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your belief of where my opinion was formed is not necessarily an accurate reflection of where or how it was actually formed. ;) Anyway, here's hoping this stubborn dispute sees some kind of definitive closure. Durova332 04:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well at least there is something that we can both agree to! Closure is what is needed. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- "one individual who did not proactively seek mentorship", Durova, I hope that comment wasn't directed at me because it would be a gross mischarterization of what actually happened. I went above and beyond the call of duty to help put that in place.--scuro (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Mentorships that have good outcomes are usually established without the Arbitration Committee's direct involvement. In the Israeli-Palestinian disputes, for example, Jaakobou had sought me out for advice for nearly half a year before a request for arbitration named him. By the time RFAR was filed it was merely a matter of formalizing the mentorship and announcing it: mentorship was already happening and he clearly had been prioritizing self-improvement over wikipolitics. He wanted feedback rather than an ally. That's proactive action on the part of an editor. Durova332 15:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Good outcomes were happening. We got thrown together but found a grove quickly. The conversation had turned to true seeking of help, and excellent help given. I was getting ready to hear his philosophy of wikipedia. There is no reason that this mentorship couldn't have turned into a very positive result, and I was very disappointed when it ended. Again, why I am being punished for earnestly complying with this remedy?--scuro (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Mentorships that have good outcomes are usually established without the Arbitration Committee's direct involvement. In the Israeli-Palestinian disputes, for example, Jaakobou had sought me out for advice for nearly half a year before a request for arbitration named him. By the time RFAR was filed it was merely a matter of formalizing the mentorship and announcing it: mentorship was already happening and he clearly had been prioritizing self-improvement over wikipolitics. He wanted feedback rather than an ally. That's proactive action on the part of an editor. Durova332 15:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- "one individual who did not proactively seek mentorship", Durova, I hope that comment wasn't directed at me because it would be a gross mischarterization of what actually happened. I went above and beyond the call of duty to help put that in place.--scuro (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well at least there is something that we can both agree to! Closure is what is needed. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your belief of where my opinion was formed is not necessarily an accurate reflection of where or how it was actually formed. ;) Anyway, here's hoping this stubborn dispute sees some kind of definitive closure. Durova332 04:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yea but your view I believe was formed on admin noticeboard initial drama, when the ADHD editors all piled onto there at once. You need I feel to be in the editing environment to understand what is really going on. You are entitled to your views, just saying that I respectfully disagree.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, one individual who did not proactively seek mentorship, juxtaposed with hostile editors who were more interested in playing to the crowd than in fostering improvement, pretty much doomed the effort from the beginning. Durova332 04:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) It's unknowable how things might have worked out in a less politicized environment. One of the downsides of relying on mentorship as an arbitration remedy is that observers usually interpret it as an alternative to more stringent measures. That applies across the board--not just to this dispute. Two or three years ago the way things worked was that editors came to arbitration and some of them mentioned along the way "I've sought and obtained mentorship". The Committee treated that as one positive sign--the editor recognized shortcomings and was willing to work on improving them--and it was up to the editor to demonstrate actual improvement. That focus on the bottom line kept the mentors themselves in the background and free to concentrate on the real priority of actually mentoring. Now look at these two quotes:
- (Posted by Scuro in response to the mentor's request to define success in mentorship): Right now what is crossing my mind is that I believe that the amendment request should not be shutdown before some serious issues have been addressed by arb com for the first time. No one should be able to continuously make false accusations and speak ill of you in wikipedia.[4]
- (Posted by Literaturegeek in response to the mentor's request for a change of venue): He didn't seem to call scuro on anything. Scuro was bad mouthing, character assassinating editors but when for example yourself tried to defend yourself your actions were labeled nasty. This may have been ok if the mentor was also labeling scuro's distortions and character assassinations as nasty but it seemed the opposite was true.[5]
This is the sort of situation mentors dread because the politics are so close to the surface that the mentor himself becomes a political football. Although not every post carried that tone, the fact that this happened at all (and on both sides) basically meant that Xavexgoem had little chance of success--and if any success did occur it would come at the unacceptably high price of much mud being thrown on his reputation. He was wise to bow out quickly. Durova332 16:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- Contrary to what you stated, the mentor did not make any request of me to define success in the mentorship. In fact Xavexgoem defined it himself this way, "Success (that is, release from mentorship) will be defined by my (Xav's) Holy Decree. Neither Xav nor Scuro will take this too too seriously, and the mentor (Xav) defines what is "too serious" and "too silly", but he is of course open to suggestion". He stated that the mentorship would focus on, "sources and citations, other things that cross our minds". [6] I took Xavexgoem up on his offer. What was on my mind was that abuse issues had gone unchecked for about 6 months and that I had made a request to arb com that I be allowed to add an amendment looking into these issues. Arb com had initially agreed but then wouldn't reply when I repeatedly asked for confirmation. Now look at my whole quote and tell me that this post is about, "tone", or "personalization". It is about an editor begging someone to do something. "...Right now what is crossing my mind is that I believe that the amendment request should not be shutdown before some serious issues have been addressed by arb com for the first time. No one should be able to continuously make false accusations and speak ill of you in wikipedia. I think that holds especially true during sanction processes when people's emotions are already heightened. This happened during the amendment request, it has happened at every sanction event starting with the topic ban. I believe there would be over a hundred examples...possibly hundreds of examples. I strongly believe that it should be addressed now because we are here, it has never been addressed formally, and this has gone on for far too long. I want a solution, and I'm willing to make any pledge, such as strictly focus on content and never the contributor. That is an easy solution if the others would follow".[7] Why I am I to be punished for making a complaint about longstanding abuse? This is a cruel way to deal with a problem.--scuro (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- No one is 'punishing' you for making a complaint. A mentor's function is to assist an editor improve their own response to a situation regardless of how fair or unfair the other factors may be. It was the focus on external factors that got things off on the wrong foot. Now you assert that the resolution is cruel, but really the bottom line here isn't anyone's feelings: it's an encyclopedia. For whatever reason, things sank into a quagmire and editors developed more interest in the quagmire than in the shared goal of presenting a good reference source to the public. Durova332 21:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- The point here is that I will be punished for constantly trying to get anyone's attention about ongoing abuse. Cruelty is not about my "feelings". I like Wikipedia's definition which is, "indifference to suffering". 6 months of no action is suffering. Yes, this is an encyclopedia, but that does not excuse indifference to abuse. That was the really frustrating part, that I did what I supposed do, and made many administrators aware of this, but nothing got done.--scuro (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Remedies at Wikipedia are preventative, not punitive. Cruelty normally carries connotations of indifference to unnecessary suffering. See also altruism and utilitarianism, particularly "the greatest good for the greatest number of people" and compare to the 30,000 page views that ADHD received in September.[8] If one individual chooses to frame the discussion in terms of "abuse" and "suffering", thinking only of himself/herself, while tens of thousands of other people read an inferior article as a result, then the applicability of the word cruelty may be debatable. We all have our strengths and our weaknesses. Perhaps when a subject hits so close to home that one's heart is on one's sleeve about it, then it would be better all around to work on some of the millions of other articles. Durova332 22:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Are we really going to talk about if I am emotional, and my deep attachment to the ADHD article? Has anyone noticed that I don't care about that article anymore? It's been a month since I have been voluntarily topic banned and that doesn't appear to be stressing me out. There are no repeated messages to administrators about this elastic topic ban. No messages at all, once I discovered that messages are often ignored. In fact I have probably made more edits to the Abousfian Abdelrazik article this year then I have to the ADHD article. Show me how the ADHD article is "inferior" because of me. Take a look at that article a year ago and now. There is very little of what I added to that article still on it. What I have cared about since the topic ban proposal is that the abuse stop. Any editor will make mistakes under constant abuse. I think it is cruel when people misinterpret many things about you and then punish you for what they believe.
- So how about we switch gears and look at the breakdown and why we have topic ban requests. This is about a mentor who quits because he, "Can't deal with this".[9] This was the blow-up that proved to administrators that things can't be worked out. Take a look at the talk page where it all fell apartUser talk:Scuro/Mentorship. Can you tell me when you first notice frustration with Xavexgoem, and which posts probably made him quit? Then can you tell me who made an effort to try and resolve differences? Now tell me why am I to be topic banned? And finally, tell what action of mine since arbitration, will you prevent from happening in the future with a topic ban?--scuro (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- No one is 'punishing' you for making a complaint. A mentor's function is to assist an editor improve their own response to a situation regardless of how fair or unfair the other factors may be. It was the focus on external factors that got things off on the wrong foot. Now you assert that the resolution is cruel, but really the bottom line here isn't anyone's feelings: it's an encyclopedia. For whatever reason, things sank into a quagmire and editors developed more interest in the quagmire than in the shared goal of presenting a good reference source to the public. Durova332 21:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Contrary to what you stated, the mentor did not make any request of me to define success in the mentorship. In fact Xavexgoem defined it himself this way, "Success (that is, release from mentorship) will be defined by my (Xav's) Holy Decree. Neither Xav nor Scuro will take this too too seriously, and the mentor (Xav) defines what is "too serious" and "too silly", but he is of course open to suggestion". He stated that the mentorship would focus on, "sources and citations, other things that cross our minds". [6] I took Xavexgoem up on his offer. What was on my mind was that abuse issues had gone unchecked for about 6 months and that I had made a request to arb com that I be allowed to add an amendment looking into these issues. Arb com had initially agreed but then wouldn't reply when I repeatedly asked for confirmation. Now look at my whole quote and tell me that this post is about, "tone", or "personalization". It is about an editor begging someone to do something. "...Right now what is crossing my mind is that I believe that the amendment request should not be shutdown before some serious issues have been addressed by arb com for the first time. No one should be able to continuously make false accusations and speak ill of you in wikipedia. I think that holds especially true during sanction processes when people's emotions are already heightened. This happened during the amendment request, it has happened at every sanction event starting with the topic ban. I believe there would be over a hundred examples...possibly hundreds of examples. I strongly believe that it should be addressed now because we are here, it has never been addressed formally, and this has gone on for far too long. I want a solution, and I'm willing to make any pledge, such as strictly focus on content and never the contributor. That is an easy solution if the others would follow".[7] Why I am I to be punished for making a complaint about longstanding abuse? This is a cruel way to deal with a problem.--scuro (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Hordaland
Undue weight? I think so. It looks to me as though ArbCom feels a need to balance things by applying exactly the same remedy to both. Literaturegeek does at times hit "save" much too quickly, but I hardly think s/he needs a whole year to calm down. - Hordaland (talk) 07:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Arbitration remedies are admittedly blunt tools with long durations. A three month sanction would be "short". One year is the general standard default length and also typically the maximum (though ArbCom has shown an increasing willingness to leave periods indefinite). The equal weight of the sanctions is based on the observation that they have both personalized this dispute. Others I would expect to take a more nuanced view share this opinion, which helped convince me that this course was necessary. It may be of additional interest to you that Literaturegeek approached me on my talk page to discuss the possibility of alternate sanctions. I'm quite open to the discussion. There is the possibility that something could be worked out that LG is willing to accept and that the length of the sanction could be reduced after demonstrating good work and an appeal. Vassyana (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Jmh649
LG is a good editor. He writes well referenced material on a variety of topics. He has contributed significantly to Wikipedia. We have not always agreed when we have crossed paths and have had some harsh words at times but LG always supported his text to verifiable sources. And this is the foundation of Wikipedia. In deciding this case I think the edit histories of these two editors need to be taken into account.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
LG is a he? 8-| --scuro (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you Doc, although you, I and David bickered back and forth about refs we continued to make good daily progress and our harsh words were from wikipedia's perspective worth it in my opinion because we ended up with a fairly balanced and comprehensive article on the adverse effects of quinolones compared to the previous version which was a major POV poorly reffed and original research nightmare. Idealy though it would have been better if no harsh words by either of us were said of course.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Skinwalker
Please do something about Literaturegeek's behavior in general. His problems with ownership and personalization of issues are not limited solely to ADHD articles and have continued for some time.. See this current SPI request from three days ago, where LG accuses pretty much everyone who disagrees with him on anxiety and benzodiazepine-related articles of being sockpuppets of each other. He persists in arguing a connection[10][11] between the accounts even after a checkuser has told him[12] that there is no overlap. Skinwalker (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I requested earlier today that the topic ban is changed to a block based behavioural remedy i.e. regarding civility and losing my cool which would cover all of wikipedia. Your post skinwalker should help me in obtaining that goal. That sockpuppet submission was in good faith and if you read the evidence there were good grounds for suspicion and still unanswered questions. The user which prompted my sock report actually edit warred on the article and was aggressive for no apparrent reason,Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#benzodiazapine_drug_misuse.2C_lack_of_credible_sourcing I offered to compromise with him on here,[13] It was nothing to do with ownership. I could comment on your motives for this posting but I shall refrain.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that after skinwalker agreed with scuro on admin noticeboard (during initial drama) that I was antipsychiatry, I instead of losing my cool or personalising tried in vain to reach out to skinwalker on his talk page.[14] I think that my response in that situation was admirable.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Was that the reaching out where you said "When I lose (my temper) i go much too far"? Yep, that's the diff. I didn't interpret that effort as anything friendlier than a veiled threat. Skinwalker (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I explained that as you know with this posting "Actually no I wasn't, I was actually doing the opposite. I wanted to avoid coming across as holier than thou and wanted to acknowledge that I have my faults as well. You are free to misinterpret it though. I made the post above to try and seek dispute resolution. I don't think that this is possible." and A hint that I am being truthful is the title of this section. (which was called "reaching out") It was refering to drama on wikipedia eg admin noticeboard, losing one's cool, making a mountain out of a mole hill etc, it was not meant to make you feel frightened or threatened.
- Now can you explain why you appear to be trying to harm me and assume bad faith and quoting out of context my post when all I have ever done is try and avoid a fight with you?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Forgot to address evidence against me
This is the third time over the past 3 or 4 months that skinwalker has made such postings unprovoked by any interaction between him and I onto projects frequented by admins, I wish it would stop, it is beginning to feel personal. Skinwalker implied that I used (or abused) the sockpuppet process in bad faith as part of an ownership agenda against to quote "accuses pretty much everyone who disagrees with him" to assumedly get rid of anyone who opposed me. This is easily proven wrong. This claim can be dismised because I only had 2 very short lived disagreements with two people, mutual monarch and the most recent person Skrewler, out of the 7 sock accounts I submitted for investigation (hardly pretty much everyone who opposed me), not including the alledged sockmaster who I did have a well known content dispute with, which was resolved. With both mutual monarch and Skrewler other editors on the articles opposed their deletions or edits as POV and reverted them, one of whom edit warred over it a few days ago. They were also very short episodes of disagreement on talk pages, so I certainly did not need to go to the extreme length of filing a fake sockpuppet investigation to "get rid of them". Seeing as sock investigations are done via IP address information, it makes no sense why I would file cases knowing they would back fire on me. Why would I do that? I am not into self harming. I also tried to work out a compromise with them, so hardly I am controlling content.[15],Talk:Panic_disorder#Medications_section_on_panic_disorder_copied_from_talk_page Mutual monarch was a minor dispute lasting all of a few days and happened 3 months ago so is very old.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Goodbye arbcom
I am leaving (already have left) ADHD articles most likely forever, certainly for a very long time anyway. I will be reverting anything related to ADHD from my talk page, time to move on, I shall not be back here at arbcom. It is too stressful and I regard wikipedia as a hobby, not a chore so time for me to move on. It is time for other people to deal with ADHD drama. I am beat and tired. Lots of work needed to antibiotic articles in peace and quiet. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)