Ncmvocalist (talk | contribs) →name change: cmt/reply to scuro |
Ncmvocalist (talk | contribs) →procedural questions: another cmt/reply to scuro |
||
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
::Having never had an administrative action taken against me three weeks ago, as of today I have gone through 7 administrative actions within that time, if you include the reopening of Wikiquette alert. I am tired of Wikipedia processes and would like a wiki-vacation. Filing procedural issues, giving evidence, and responding to evidence is an unfair burden within the time frame of a week.--[[User:Scuro|scuro]] ([[User talk:Scuro|talk]]) 05:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC) |
::Having never had an administrative action taken against me three weeks ago, as of today I have gone through 7 administrative actions within that time, if you include the reopening of Wikiquette alert. I am tired of Wikipedia processes and would like a wiki-vacation. Filing procedural issues, giving evidence, and responding to evidence is an unfair burden within the time frame of a week.--[[User:Scuro|scuro]] ([[User talk:Scuro|talk]]) 05:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::As I said the "week" isn't a hard and fast deadline. Depending on what kind of wikibreak you're talking about, you may want to ask a clerk or arb for advice on how to proceed. I know in the past if people didn't want to participate in arbitration, or didn't have time, etc., a motion could be made and the case would be stayed. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 05:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC) |
:::As I said the "week" isn't a hard and fast deadline. Depending on what kind of wikibreak you're talking about, you may want to ask a clerk or arb for advice on how to proceed. I know in the past if people didn't want to participate in arbitration, or didn't have time, etc., a motion could be made and the case would be stayed. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 05:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::1 week was meant to be the ideal timeline for evidence, however, it's generally several weeks, and I expect so in this case (partially due to the nature of the request, and partially because the caseload grows for many arbs); the ancient guidelines may need some updating to reflect current norms. :) Per Xeno, contacting an arbitrator or clerk to arrange additional time before you begin participating may resolve some of your concerns. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 18:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:45, 23 May 2009
Uninvolved folk
Statements from initial requests by non-parties copied here. —— nixeagleemail me 20:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Xeno
Having been watching the ANI thread at the request of Nja247 with an eye to providing a neutral closure, I note that each party has raised concerns as to the various other forms of dispute resolution available. Scuro worried that some venues may be unfair or unfocused and other parties speculated that certain venues would simply generate further countless KBs without tangible results - neither side seems to agree on where to go next. While my closure of the topic ban proposal as unsuccessful with suggestions as to ways forward [1] conflicted with Durova's filing this RFAR, it is my humble opinion that the methodical approach to arbitration is likely to ensure fairness and provide benefits for all parties involved and urge acceptance of the case to bring order to this group of articles. –xeno talk 16:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Abd
Not ripe for ArbComm, recommend remanding this back to the community. If needed, an RfC or RfCs would develop and review behavioral evidence before ArbComm sees this again, and it may never be necessary to bring this up here again. I'll watch the articles more closely, and will assist as needed; Scuro has a clear and strong POV and is tenacious and difficult, but that can be restrained and channeled productively, I believe; if not, this will become obvious short of ArbComm; likewise DocJames is highly informed, perhaps an expert, and I'd prefer to retain his advice. Experts often become somewhat uncivil or impatient when faced with opposition that they consider ignorant. I'll be more quick to restrain him, should that be needed. (The "druged you good" comment was later struck by him.) --Abd (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I should say that I'm generically opposed to banning editors for discussion on a Talk page when lesser measures will do; for example, with local consensus, Talk page comments can be collapsed or archived, and if edit warring develops over this, well, there you go. On the other hand, Scuro was indeed editing the articles, with contentious insertion of tags and the like. If the case is accepted, I accept being a party, since Scuro long ago, unfortunately, banned me from his Talk page, and clearly considers me some kind of opponent. See [2]. I'd forgotten about [3]. I'd consider myself obligated to present evidence. --Abd (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Ncmvocalist
Ideally, if the involved users took the right series of steps and took it to the right venues from the word go, the community could and would have been able to resolve many of the underling issues here. However, as the opposite occurred, and the community will no longer be willing or able to resolve this, acceptance is indeed needed here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Unionhawk, I am neither explicitly endorsing nor dismissing your description of this dispute (which incidentally, matches a claim that scuro is tendentiously editing). What I am suggesting is that on at least one occasion, this dispute was brought to the wrong step in dispute resolution - if it was taken to RfC/U at the conclusion of the WQA, or taken there to begin with instead, Durova's response would have been more definitive on whether she felt the sanctions were justified or not. Instead, there were procedural issues, specifically concerning the presentation of evidence (or a lack thereof). See also my comments below. To be frank, I don't understand what (if anything) you disagree with me about? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Literaturegeek, you are misstating my position. I don't believe this is a regular argument on a talk page, and I assume Nja247 picked that up in my response on my talk page. I'm unfortunately very familiar with the behaviour being alleged here - however, that doesn't mean we don't follow a set of steps to deal with such claims. I was able to resolve behavioural issues I've personally encountered (similar to those alleged in this case) through community measures short of arbitration because I followed the guidance I was given; sadly, I cannot necessarily say the same for all of the involved users here (including yourself) who suggest that they are encountering similar issues - perhaps what you think you know is too little, or in this case, simply not enough. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Scuro, this request is named in a particular way, so that arbitrators are expected to look at claims about misbehaviour in that area of conflict (the group of articles that are at the centre of the dispute) - obviously, your conduct will be considered, but so will all of the other involved parties listed at the top of this request. As long as involved parties maintain an acceptable level of decorum, they may express their concerns and claims about another involved users behaviour in evidence if they wish, and may respond to such claims and concerns against them if they wish. There are times where arbitration is unlikely to yield better outcomes for the project than if the community is given a/another chance to handle it. However, that is not the case here - rather than have all concerns and claims potentially ignored by the community, both sides are likely to have a better outcome for the project through arbitration, which is at the heart of why I urged acceptance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
name change
- Three of the parties involved in this case have requested a name change. Since virtually all the issues are about Scuro, should this not be a user conduct Arb? If this is mainly about user conduct, could changing the title of the case inadvertently avoid closer scrutiny to the fact that none of the criteria were met for an arbitration case. No party to this case has ever attempted any mediation or attempted to reconcile differences on the talk pages. Ncmvocalist, I do appreciate the logic of your attempt to resolve issues, my concern is that this shouldn't happen in an unfair way. If a band of contributors "railroad" a single contributor who does not share their viewpoint to Arb, with absolutely no attempt at mediation, how can this be justified because they say mediation is impossible? As I have stated before, two wrongs don't make a right. The arbitration committee should rule on the issue of the title of this case. How would this be requested?--scuro (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think since the pages are already created, it makes just as much sense to leave it. The area of dispute is confined to ADHD-related articles. If you really want to change it you may want to ask a clerk the proper procedure to request it formally (proposed motion on workshop maybe). In consideration of your "railroad" statement, and the below, I'll remind you that it was a neutral third party that filed this arbitration request, while another neutral party closed an ANI thread suggesting arbitration as the ideal venue for all involved. As far as I can tell, there have been several attempts at dispute resolution; but if you disagree you can submit evidence to the contrary. –xenotalk 05:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- On the topic ban proposal contributor Durova stated; "Nja, my thought on this has already been stated three times: no, no, and no. There hasn't been sufficient evidence for any sanction at all. After two days of requesting the background I finally dug it up myself. This is beginning to resemble a tendentious quest for sanctions. That's more worrisome than the putative disruption itself because it's a step on the slippery slope to POV groups railroading editors who hold minority views. A request for community sanctions is a serious matter. DurovaCharge! 18:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)". The observation of potential railroading is his. I don't see this as a giant conspiracy. Simply that railroading happened at the start, and once the wheels got moving there was no stopping this train. If the name change allows for deflection from the issue of not following wiki policy, then this issue is very important.
- 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.--scuro (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, Durova is a her. ;) Secondly, mediation is an attempt to resolve content issues - as effective as it is, it frequently is insufficient to resolve many conduct concerns. If arbitrators later find that there is inadequate attempts at dispute resolution, they may either make that as a finding, or close or suspend the case for a period of time to see if arbitration is still needed. Thirdly, the type of editing alleged was serious enough to compel many arbitrators towards accepting this case; if such an allegation is not founded on facts, or inaccurate, then the users making such allegations are engaging in a type of misconduct themselves and would be at risk of being subject to sanctions themselves. It's therefore important to present your evidence and responses to evidence against you, as soon as you can - arbitrators often accomodate reasonable requests for time where parties are away or unable to edit for a period of time. Finally, see also Xeno's comment. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Major issue has never been addressed-want ruling
From the Arb topic page [[4]]
The arbitration process within the Wikipedia community exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes that neither communal discussion, administrators, nor mediation have been able to resolve"..."The Committee accepts cases related to editors' conduct (including improper editing) where all other routes to agreement have failed".
- Requesting arbitration
To request that a dispute be arbitrated, see the arbitration request page.
Requests for Arbitration can also be used to present questions and requests related to previous closed cases. These include clarification of the intent and scope of a decision, appeals of past sanctions, and requests to amend remedies and enforcement measures.
- Cases lacking prior dispute resolution
The Committee will generally accept these types of cases without any previous formal dispute resolution measures being followed:
- Reviews of emergency actions to remove administrator privileges
- Unusually divisive disputes among administrators
- Matters directly referred to the Arbitration Committee by Jimbo Wales
Otherwise, it is expected that other avenues of dispute resolution will have been exhausted before a case is filed—Arbitration is the last resort for conflicts, rather than the first.
- None of the prior steps required for filing an Arb have ever been taken. No mediation process was ever undertaken with contributor Scuro. No party has ever attempted to earnestly reconcile differences on the talk pages. Instead of a process of "last resort", a process of "first resort" has been created. This issue was brought up both at the topic ban proposal [[5]] and Arb request filing of Scuro[[6]]. This issue has never been informally or formally addressed. What is important here, is that a two tiered wikipedia has now been created. We have every contributor on one tier and then a single contributor on the second tier. That single contributor lives under a set of rules that no one else does. Allowing this has implications for all of wikipedia:
- sets a precedent for future abuse, ie railroading
- doesn't allow for contributor to self correct behaviour over time
- creates adversarial instead of collaborative environment
- creates level of intense scrutiny not warranted under the circumstances
- is fundamentally unfair
- None of the prior steps required for filing an Arb have ever been taken. No mediation process was ever undertaken with contributor Scuro. No party has ever attempted to earnestly reconcile differences on the talk pages. Instead of a process of "last resort", a process of "first resort" has been created. This issue was brought up both at the topic ban proposal [[5]] and Arb request filing of Scuro[[6]]. This issue has never been informally or formally addressed. What is important here, is that a two tiered wikipedia has now been created. We have every contributor on one tier and then a single contributor on the second tier. That single contributor lives under a set of rules that no one else does. Allowing this has implications for all of wikipedia:
- The arbitration committee should rule on the issue of not following Arb procedure. How would this be requested? Issues addressed should include "is it right to break all the rules" with any Arb case ( and with this case in particular ), the implications of bringing this case to Arb creates, and if a second tier contributor should be judged differently then a first tier contributor.--scuro (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
procedural questions
- time constraint
As I understand things the evidence phase of Arb is generally about a week. Within this time frame all parties to the case must provide their evidence and counter anyone else's evidence? Am I right in my assumptions?--scuro (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've not participated in many arb cases, but they often take several weeks, or longer. It is requested you submit all main evidence within a week, and then it moves on to the "workshop" phase (proposed remedies, and the like). During the whole case, any of the pages may be edited, so if new evidence comes to light and you need to add more to the evidence page, or you wish to propose remedies, motions, etc. during evidence phase on the workshop page you are free to do so. This is my limited understanding; someone correct me if I'm wrong. Your question seems to have the concern that you won't have time to process everything - that's usually not the case at AC, it's a slow methodical process and there's no deadline. –xenotalk 05:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Having never had an administrative action taken against me three weeks ago, as of today I have gone through 7 administrative actions within that time, if you include the reopening of Wikiquette alert. I am tired of Wikipedia processes and would like a wiki-vacation. Filing procedural issues, giving evidence, and responding to evidence is an unfair burden within the time frame of a week.--scuro (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- As I said the "week" isn't a hard and fast deadline. Depending on what kind of wikibreak you're talking about, you may want to ask a clerk or arb for advice on how to proceed. I know in the past if people didn't want to participate in arbitration, or didn't have time, etc., a motion could be made and the case would be stayed. –xenotalk 05:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- 1 week was meant to be the ideal timeline for evidence, however, it's generally several weeks, and I expect so in this case (partially due to the nature of the request, and partially because the caseload grows for many arbs); the ancient guidelines may need some updating to reflect current norms. :) Per Xeno, contacting an arbitrator or clerk to arrange additional time before you begin participating may resolve some of your concerns. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- As I said the "week" isn't a hard and fast deadline. Depending on what kind of wikibreak you're talking about, you may want to ask a clerk or arb for advice on how to proceed. I know in the past if people didn't want to participate in arbitration, or didn't have time, etc., a motion could be made and the case would be stayed. –xenotalk 05:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Having never had an administrative action taken against me three weeks ago, as of today I have gone through 7 administrative actions within that time, if you include the reopening of Wikiquette alert. I am tired of Wikipedia processes and would like a wiki-vacation. Filing procedural issues, giving evidence, and responding to evidence is an unfair burden within the time frame of a week.--scuro (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)