Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 33

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Leatherstocking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I have received a message on my talk page from SlimVirgin[1], informing me in a very convoluted way that she believes that an edit I made "violates the spirit of BLP and the LaRouche 2 ArbCom case" and that "If that kind of editing continues," I'm "likely to be subject to sanctions." She also mentions that she is "writing this as an editor, not as an admin." I find this very strange for several reasons. Her argument against using a court filing as a source ([2]) may have some merit, although normally one would simply raise the issue on the article talk page and not leave a threatening note. I am concerned because SlimVirgin recently made an unsuccessful attempt to get me in trouble at the ANI board ([3],) and this appears to be a follow-up effort. My specific questions are as follows:

1. What on earth does this have to do with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2? SlimVirgin claims that I'm "editing about someone perceived as an enemy of a movement you support." I'm not sure who is doing the "perceiving" here, but I looked on the two main LaRouche websites and found no mention of A.J. Weberman.[4][5]. I also find SlimVirgin's accusation that the LaRouche movement is "a movement that I support" to be outrageous and unfounded. I made this sufficiently clear at the ANI discussion.

2. Is SlimVirgin's accusation that I am a supporter of the LaRouche movement a violation of Wikipedia:Requests for_arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Caution to SlimVirgin on personal attacks?

3. This morning I restored material that I felt was improperly deleted by SlimVirgin, in this edit. This afternoon, she deleted it again, along with related material, in this edit, in which she cites Wikipedia:Requests for_arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 as justification. Is this a permissable interpretation of LaRouche 2? It appears to me that SlimVirgin is arguing that Dennis King, or any other person "perceived as an enemy" of LaRouche, may not be criticized at Wikipedia, no matter for what reason and no matter how well sourced the criticism. By her logic, if anyone adds material critical of King or others, that person is transformed into a supporter of LaRouche, and is therefore, by her unusual interpretation of LaRouche 2, not permitted to edit.

4. At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Post-decision motion passed, it says that It is also pointed out that the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, formulated since that first case, must be applied strictly to all biographical material appearing in articles relating to the LaRouche movement. Since SlimVirgin was a party to that case, does this line have the effect of a specific instruction to her that she must not violate BLP at LaRouche articles?

Responses to other statements: Will Beback and SlimVirgin are using some truly tortured logic here. They seem to be arguing that if LaRouche doesn't like the Yippies, then editors must add only flattering material to articles on Yippies, or be tarred with the brush of being a "LaRouche editor" (that's Step #6 of WP:9STEPS.) The fact of the matter is, I opened an account here because I noticed that a number of persons close to the Yippies, particularly A.J. Weberman/User:Ajweberman and Dennis King/User:Dking. were exploiting Wikipedia for purposes of self-promotion (which is the sort of thing at which Yippies are known to excel.) I was only vaguely aware of LaRouche at that time. I began to watch Dking participate in conflicts at the LaRouche articles and I noticed that Dking had a small group of allies who were using tactics that I believed to be WP:Gaming the system#Abuse of process, and I began to oppose them, which seems to have made me a target. My edits at "LaRouche" articles have always been made from the standpoint of asking that BLP and other policies be strictly observed, but Will And SlimVirgin are misrepresenting them to the effect that if I remove material that violates BLP, or restore sourced material that has been deleted without cause, I am said to be "adding positive material or deleting negative material from the LaRouche articles." In fact, recent disputes have been due to a team effort by Will and SlimVirgin to entirely re-write, from a POV agenda, several articles which I felt were stable and well-balanced.

One other item that needs to be addressed: Will mentions that I violated the forum shopping rule. This is true; I violated it because I was unaware of it. As soon as it was brought to my attention, I stopped. This request for clarification, to my mind, is an unrelated matter; I made the request after receiving a threatening note from SlimVirgin on my talk page. Since I was being threatened, I felt it was urgent that I get a clarification of the policy. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the ArbCom decision was intended to prevent POV pushing. But SlimVirgin's re-interpretation seems to be intended to prevent POV pushing only from the pro-LaRouche camp, while giving almost unlimited license to POV pushing from the anti-LaRouche camp. It seems that anyone who opposes SlimVirgin's edits must necessarily be pro-LaRouche, and therefore any and all tactics to shut that person up are acceptable. Here is a cute logical trick, akin to "have you stopped beating your wife?: Whether Leatherstocking is a member of the movement or just a sympathizer doesn't matter. False dichotomy; there is a third option, which happens to be the correct one: I tend to react if I see what looks like bullies who are gaming the system. If I saw these tactics at work in some other group of biographical articles, sooner or later I would feel obliged to get involved in that conflict as well.

SlimVirgin makes this accusation: He's clearly intensely interested in and sympathetic toward LaRouche, and he's editing BLPs of people LaRouche doesn't like, and that's just not a good thing. I would say in response that SlimVirgin is clearly interested in and antipathetic toward LaRouche, and she's made several hundred hostile edits to his BLP in the past weeks, and that's just not a good thing. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to re-emphasize that none of the material removed from Dennis King by SlimVirgin[6] originated with LaRouche. It's from Daniel Pipes and Laird Wilcox. Also, as I indicated, I had edited both Dennis King and A.J. Weberman long before I edited a LaRouche article or got into any scrap with SlimVirgin. I would like to see the ArbCom issue very clear guidelines as to constitutes a "pro-LaRouche editor," so as to prevent the designation of others as "pro-LaRouche editors" from becoming a tactic available to POV-warriors. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Leatherstocking has been engaged in forum shopping, posting complaints in the last week to WP:ANI, WP:BLPN, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard , and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Regarding Leatherstocking's assertion that he does not support the LaRouche movement, virtually all of his 1000+ edits have been to LaRouche-related topics or to critics of LaRouche. Inevitably, he's added positive material or deleted negative material from the LaRouche articles, while adding negative material to the articles about critics or their projects. Despite his protests, I don't think his assertions of being disinterested are credible. I am currently compiling diffs to show the many occasions on which he's edit warred on behalf of a banned user, or to add LaRouche material to the project. As for Slimvirgin's concern, I'm not sure I agree with her view that it violates WP:RFAR/LL2. However if the ArbCom is interested in this case, I'd urge them to wait until all of the evidence can be assembled.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding LaRouche v. Weberman, Weberman was a member of the Yippies.[7]

The LaRouchians used the false-witness tactic in 1981 against an enemy they hated even more than the environmentalists-the Yippies. To the LaRouchians, the Yippies were the symbol of everything evil--long-haired potheads who hung out at rock concerts, had no respect for Beethoven, and made constant trouble for LaRouche. They had picketed his headquarters with the banner "Nazis Make Good Lampshades" and on several occasions placed crank calls to Steinberg and Goldstein from pay phones. Aron Kay, the Yippie "pie man," was plotting to land a mushroom pie in LaRouche's face at the earliest opportunity. Security prepared a series of "Dope Dossiers" on Kay, Abbie Hoffman, and other Yippies. A New Solidarity editorial, "Cleaning Up the Filth," described them as "gutter scum" and announced that the dossiers were "being supplied to the New York City Police Department and other law enforcement agencies." The contents of the dossiers were oriented toward inducing the police to investigate the Yippies for possession or sale of marijuana. The LaRouchians were well aware that marijuana possession was low on the police list of priorities, but suggested that the police would thereby find evidence of Yippie involvement in terrorism and other serious crimes.

— King, Dennis (1989). Lyndon LaRouche and the new American fascism, Doubleday. ISBN 9780385238809

That's from Dennis King, but ther's no reason to doubt it. According to a source that Leatherstocking wants to add, Weberman has served as King's webmaster in recent years. (King's book was written long before the Wolrd Wide Web.)

General Luis Giuffreda, who headed under President Reagan the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) between 1981 and 1985, testified to the considerable danger LaRouche's life, referenced numerous reports of threats to LaRouche, from terrorist groupings including the Baader-Meinhof band, Weather-Underground, Yippies and Jewish Defense League, as well as threats from the Communist Party U.S.A. and the Soviet Union directly. In view of these threats, LaRouche's security arrangements were much too little. LaRouche's security was not in the "Cadillac category" but rather in the "VW bug" category, and that LaRouche's living quarters reminded Gen. Giuffreda of his son's student housing.

— "LaRouche Trial Fact Sheet", The following is a fact sheet documenting the background to the trial of Lyndon LaRouche at the Federal Court in Alexandria, Virginia USA., Posted by John Covici, 28 Mar 92

That is a LaRouche source.   Will Beback  talk  02:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Overall, I don't see why this can't be handled at WP:AE.   Will Beback  talk  21:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth is correct that decisions about sources have led to repeated disputes. (I think that is typical of contentious topics). Over the years, engaged editors have made extensive use of noticeboards, creating unusually long threads, sometimes with multiple HK socks participating at once. One stayed active for five months. As an experiment, editors of another contentious topic have create a project, WP:RAWAT, to serve as a central place to find consensus on issues like sourcing that apply to several articles. (It's based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration). However there are many editors involved in the Rawat articles. The LaRouche articles have only three regular editors: myself, Leatherstocking (LS), and HK's sock accounts. (Slimvirgin has had a flurry of activity recently, but she's been mostly inactive for the past two years. Dking edits occasionally but is mostly retired. Cberlet is entirely retired.) (Besides LS and HK, the only other editor to make significant pro-LaRouche edits was Cognition. A recent checkuser finding showed that he may have been a sock of 172, to everyone's astonishment.) So I don't think the project concept would work if there are only two unbanned editors who are regularly involved. We could seek to form a task force of another project, though deciding which one would be appropriate could be tricky.   Will Beback  talk  05:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Leatherstocking is clearly a LaRouche editor. He says he's not, but his entire contribution history (since 2007) says otherwise. He edits articles about LaRouche, and about LaRouche's "enemies," and about the friends of LaRouche's enemies, to add material that would be favoured by the LaRouche movement. When he's not doing that, he's posting on the BLP, RS, and NPOV noticeboards, or on AN/I and AE, trying to cause problems for editors who oppose him. Every request to Leatherstocking to change his ways causes him to file more complaints or requests for clarification (like this one), which takes up yet more time.

2. My warning to him today concerned this edit, which includes in the lead of A.J. Weberman that Weberman manages Dennis King's website. Dennis King is LaRouche's biographer, widely disliked within the LaRouche movement. The edit was a BLP violation because it was based on a court document that no secondary source has written about and, further, was posted on a dubious website. BLP says: "Exercise great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use ... trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them."

3. In addition (and this is a separate issue from the BLP violation above), the LaRouche 2 ArbCom case cautioned named LaRouche editors not to edit Dennis King or make edits about him elsewhere. Although the ruling does not name Leatherstocking, the spirit of the ruling certainly applies to him. It says: ... the remedies applied in Lyndon LaRouch 2 are applied to Cognition, and the general ban on LaRouche-related article editing is expanded to include Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates, and Dennis King (and their talk pages).

Georgewilliamherbert is the admin who's been keeping an eye on LaRouche issues, so I told him about my warning to Leatherstocking, and asked if he would look out for the BLP issues. [8]

Will knows more about this editor than I do, so I'm not in a position to provide more diffs about him at this point, in case more are needed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana, there are several clauses in LaRouche 2 that could apply, for example (bold added):

8.3.3.1 Ban extended

5.1) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 is modified so that the remedies applied in Lyndon LaRouch 2 are applied to Cognition (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), and the general ban on LaRouche-related article editing is expanded to include Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates, and Dennis King (and their talk pages). [9]

The general ban on editing was that anyone editing like Herschelkrustofsky should stay away from LaRouche-related articles. The decision says (bold added): [10]

8.1.5 One user or several.

For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar behavior they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."

The remedy above (8.3.3.1 "Ban extended") extended the definition of "LaRouche-related articles" to cover Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates, and Dennis King, and their talk pages, because these are people that LaRouche and his supporters regard as enemies, and some inappropriate edits were being made to them. In fact, the two BLPs were created by Herschelkrustofsky in the first place.

Leatherstocking is not Herschelkrustofsky but his editing is the same. He has been editing Dennis King, and has been adding material about King to other articles e.g. to this article about yet another LaRouche enemy. That edit also violated BLP because it was based on a primary source, and the issue has not been mentioned by secondary sources. BLP doesn't allow that.

The basic problem is this: for the past five years at least, accounts associated with the LaRouche movement have used Wikipedia to create articles about LaRouche's enemies, to add little barbs to existing BLPs, and to add conspiracy theories to BLPs and to other articles about the BLP subjects. Most of it was sourced to LaRouche publications. Sometimes there were other sources, but almost never good ones.

This used to happen a lot before we had BLP. Now, it seems clear to me that the spirit of BLP (even though it doesn't actually say this) is that people with personal axes to grind about living people shouldn't be editing articles about those people. The more we mature as a project, the more clarity there is around that issue. Dennis King, for example, should probably stay away from Lyndon LaRouche too, even though he's LaRouche's published biographer and knows a lot about him. But there were legal threats between them a few years ago, and obviously he had to immerse himself in LaRouche to write the biography, and he still maintains a website about LaRouche. That degree of offwiki involvement, even if 100 percent legitimate, probably means he should leave it to others to add his information to the LaRouche article. Keeping a distance in such a case protects LaRouche, King, and Wikipedia.

Whether Leatherstocking is a member of the movement or just a sympathizer doesn't matter. He's clearly intensely interested in and sympathetic toward LaRouche, and he's editing BLPs of people LaRouche doesn't like, and that's just not a good thing.

Finally (sorry for the length), the ArbCom did, as you say, explicitly address this situation in 2007 in an addition to LaRouche 2 (bold added): [11]

8.5 Post-decision motion passed

The findings of fact of the original decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision, closed in September 2004, referred to two problematic behaviours:

• a pattern of adding original material, not an editor's own, but that of Lyndon LaRouche, to Wikipedia articles,
• a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.

The Arbitration Committee affirms that editor behaviour amounting to such patterns is not accepted on Wikipedia. Administrators should draw the attention of editors to these standing principles, which should be known by any editor engaging closely in LaRouche-related articles. After due warning, explanation, and reference to the basic unacceptability of POV pushing on Wikipedia, proportionate blocks may be applied by administrators. Cases of difficulty may be referred directly to the Committee for clarification.

It is also pointed out that the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, formulated since that first case, must be applied strictly to all biographical material appearing in articles relating to the LaRouche movement.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• (Disclosure: I performed a CheckUser during one of the recent AN/I threads and asked some experienced admins to review the matter, but I have no other involvement.) Will, I believe that if there is sufficient evidence to act that action may be taken at AN/I or by forwarding the information to the functionaries list without the direct intervention of the Committee. Regarding the applicability of the case per the clarification request, I believe (and she may correct me if I am mistaken) that SlimVirgin is referring to: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Post-decision motion passed. I am not endorsing any accusations or defenses in this instance, but it does seem that it clearly applies if the concerns are founded. Vassyana (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Vassyana that SlimVirgin is probably correct that LL2 does seem to apply, but I see no reason to believe this needs to be handled by the committee directly at this time. As far as I can tell, AN/I and AE are suitable venues. — Coren ^(talk) 12:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Vassyana sums up the position well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Vassyana's assessment of the situation, but the motion is not a remedy, just a restatement of the applicability of ordinary editorial policies. Editors in this topic area should have those policies in mind, not this motion. --bainer (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• I'm going to take a different tack here, to those of my colleagues, and step back and look at the wider picture. I looked at Lyndon LaRouche, LaRouche movement and then at articles on critics of the LaRouche movement (all in Category:Critics of the LaRouche Movement), articles such as Dennis King, Chip Berlet, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, John Rees (journalist) and Mike Royko. Some of those articles are of borderline notability (others are much more notable), and risk becoming a battleground over what to add and remove about LaRouche material (as has happened here with Dennis King). My advice with respect to editor conduct would be to try and work out a unified approach to dealing with such matters, rather than arguing over the same things in different articles. Get some editorial agreement on a guideline on how to approach such things, and build on the arbitration remedies and motions, rather than using them a club. I also see that the arguments for and against various sources are scattered over lots of talk pages and discussion archives. A well-written summary for permanent reference would help here as well. Carcharoth (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Case affected

ADHD arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 3) Scuro placed under mentorship

   Scuro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under mentorship for a period of one year. Scuro shall find a mentor of his choice, and shall inform the Committee once the mentor has been selected; if no mentor is found within one month of the closure of this case, the Committee will appoint a mentor. The terms of the mentorship must cover guidance on Wikipedia's sourcing and citation guidelines, but otherwise Scuro and the mentor are free to decide on the terms. Once an agreement on the terms is reached, Scuro or the mentor shall advise the Committee of the terms by email.

   Passed 10 to 0 to 1, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Remedy 7) Editors encouraged

   All editors interested in the topic area are encouraged to seek outside editorial assistance (by way of a request for comment, or by seeking input from relevant WikiProjects) in resolving the editorial disagreements relating to the due weight to be accorded to various points of view on controversies relating to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

   Passed 11 to 0, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Hordaland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator, filed first amendment)
• scuro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Literaturegeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (filed second amendment)
• Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Unionhawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• scuro scuro
• Literaturegeek
• Jmh649 Jmh649
• Unionhawk Unionhawk
• WhatamIdoing WhatamIdoing
• Hordaland

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Scuro_placed_under_mentorship
• Desired modification (additions in bold):

Scuro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under mentorship for a period of one year. Scuro shall find a mentor of his choice, and shall inform the Committee once the mentor has been selected; if no mentor is found within one month of the closure of this case (that is, by 15 August 2009), the Committee will appoint a mentor. The terms of the mentorship must cover guidance on Wikipedia's sourcing and citation guidelines and observation of and assistance with effective communication on talk pages, but otherwise Scuro and the mentor are free to decide on the terms. Once an agreement on the terms is reached, Scuro or the mentor shall advise the Committee of the terms by email. Until said mentor is in place and the terms are approved by Scuro, the mentor and the Committee, Scuro is topic banned from editing articles and talk pages defined in "Topic area" above, broadly construed.

• Desired modification, Revised, 10/10/09. If I may:

Scuro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under mentorship for a period of one year. Scuro and the Committee have agreed upon a mentor. Scuro and Xavexgoem shall agree upon the terms of the mentorship and advise the Committee of the terms by email before the end of October 2009. The terms of the mentorship must cover guidance on Wikipedia's sourcing and citation guidelines and observation of and assistance with effective communication on talk pages, but otherwise Scuro and the mentor are free to decide on the terms.

• The situation on Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and related pages including Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Week (MCOTW) is at present much the same as it was this spring, before arbitration. Scuro talks (and sometimes lectures) about collaboration, true consensus building, a new start/beginning, NPOV, undue weight, the ball is in your court, be willing to come to the table, etc., but in a way that most other editors see as delaying tactics or otherwise not constructive. find unconstructive. When he talks about "majority opinion" and "minority opinion", it is plain that he feels that he represents the majority while most other editors belong to a minority or fringe. Scuro has knowledge and views which I believe should be heard but his methods style of communicating is not conducive to the kinds of cooperation needed to write an encyclopedia. I would like to see him learn from a very good and patient mentor; without that, the situation is again intolerable. Since Scuro states that the mentor (he calls it "mediator") should only be concerned with citations, the requested amendment is necessary. Quote: "By the way I've followed all of my obligations with regards to arbitration, and the mediator was specifically for citations only."

Thank you, Carcharoth, for combining the two requests! - Hordaland (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Unionhawk, 13:04 UTC. That was nicely put, UH. Surely all will agree with you. - Hordaland (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to scuro, 00:38 UTC In hope that my amendment request could be merged with Lg's, I used the same names as s/he did. I could have and probably should have notified some others of the request(s). - Hordaland (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to scuro 16:00 UTC Scuro has asked for clarification on five points. I’ll comment on the three which have anything to do with what I have said.

1.) "delaying tactics"

I wrote “...see as delaying tactics or otherwise not constructive.” The use of the words “delaying tactics” does, I’ll agree, imply intention. Therefore I’ve struck those words above. See also point 3 below, which is related.

2.) "...style of communicating is not conducive to the kinds of cooperation needed..."

Scuro’s posts sometimes start out on-topic and often end with confrontational admonishments which I, at least, find insulting. Some very recent examples (there are many more in the archives): Diff.Diff.Diff. Diff.

3.) trying to block collaboration --“...would like us to believe that my many requests for collaboration are anything but true appeals for seeking consensus. This is a "bad faith" assumption which has been refuted.”

It's not a bad faith assumption from my side; I believe that Scuro means well. I can’t see that his “has been refuted” link is relevant in this connection. Most of us have many edits under our belts on various topics, in cooperation with many editors. When it is only on the ADHD talk page that we, again and again, are told what Wikipedia wants us to do, it becomes insulting and, finally, just noise. It is my hope that a mentor will be able to show scuro when this sort of thing is happening and how to avoid it.- Hordaland (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment on scuro's comment below, 11:46, 23 September. Scuro wrote: "...and that no other means of dispute resolution or even direct communication was attempted for this specific issue." The specific issue must be that which the two amendment requests have in common: the wish that scuro, too, should welcome MCOTW to the ADHD article(s). Many diffs can be provided to show that nearly all involved have pointed out that resistance to MCOTW makes no sense at all. WhatamIdoing put it well when she said (paraphrasing here) that scuro's reasoning is like having to clean the house before letting the house-cleaners in. It is simply not true to say that no direct communication was attempted for this issue. --Hordaland (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to scuro, 12:12, 25 September. This page is already quite long enough. I see no need for additional input, unless ArbCom asks for it. - Hordaland (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hello Vassyana, and welcome. You write: "...sit down to talk about things in a nice, calm manner, and get a friendly volunteer to help sort things out." Sounds good. But the first half of that will not work without the last half which hopefully soon involves a mentor. Incompatible styles of communication, talking past one another; it's difficult to try to explain it all to people who haven't been involved. We'll need a "friendly volunteer" for many months; there's no point in yet another bandaid when at least therapy and maybe surgery are needed.

Although I can agree with Scuro that your "apples to apples comparison" is not that great, the effect is that.

If you do decide on a ban, it must include the talk pages and must be long enough for MedCollaboftheWeek to come and work their magic on the article(s). Thank you, - Hordaland (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments to scuro

1. You write: "...the remedy of a mentor was for citations only." You are, of course, correct that the original Remedy #3 (of 00:03 UTC, 14 July) included at a minimum "guidance on Wikipedia's sourcing and citation guidelines." We are here writing on a page entitled Request to amend prior case: ADHD, and the request regarding Remedy 3 specifies: and observation of and assistance with effective communication on talk pages. This request for amendment is why we are here.
2. You mention mediator/mediation many times. It is unclear to me if you want both a mentor and a mediator. The mentor is a given, and if the above amendment request goes through, one mentor should be enough as far as I can see.
3. You write: "I am worried that ... that things will slide back into predictable patterns if we don't do something now." Now there's something we all can agree on. - Hordaland (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hurrah! I feel like we all should go out and celebrate.

Thanks Xavexgoem and scuro. My amendment request still stands (see revised version above), as help with effective communication on talk pages should solve most of our problems. And as Unionhawk put it below: "The effective communication and observation portion should be assumed just from mentorship alone."

• Answering Unionhawk. "closure? sure, why not?," you wrote. See above where I've revised the amendment request (Remedy 3). - Hordaland (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to support what Hordaland has said regarding a mentor. I think that a mentor may be able to help with some of the issues and is a step in the right direction. I would support a topic ban until a mentor has been found as has been proposed by one of the arbitration staff. The problem of repeatedly shouting about fringe, minority and "true concensus" (with original research and no citations) and NPOV is really a continuation of the same WP:DISRUPT. Uninvolved admins sadly read these statements when drama occurs and then think I or others are the problem and are "not seeking consensus", which then tends to lead to drama escalating in unpredictable directions.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have no problems with such additions, however, ideally, the committee will find a mentor before this amendment is added.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to scuro

Irrelevant. This is mainly intended on... telling the ArbCom to carry out the mentorship portion of the original ruling (which they should do anyway, regardless of any amendment).--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 15:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The effective communication and observation portion should be assumed just from mentorship alone.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The proposed change to "amendment 1", seeks the additional restriction that the mentor "observe" and "assist" with "effective communication". It also seeks a topic ban until a mentor has been found. Hordaland's justification for the additions is "delaying tactics" and "his methods of communicating are not conducive to the kinds of cooperation needed to write an encyclopedia". Literaturegeek believes that I am: "shouting", "disruptive", and that I continue to create "original research and no citations". These statements make the assumption that I am purposefully posting extraneous material so as to stop them from doing their job. They are also assuming that my method of communication impedes cooperation. These are all assumptions of "bad faith", and the evidence provided does not at all support the false assumptions made. This could be construed as harassment.

Administrator Nja247 has commented [12] on our behaviour since arbitration: "I think it'd be important to stress what you have done above to me, in that you have tried to find a mentor and that you shouldn't be punished for not succeeding, nor should you be punished for Arb's failure to appoint. Further I can confirm that you have in my opinion tried..." Since arbitration I've gone to great efforts to comply with the arbitration ruling, exceeding expections. Several people were contacted, including Nja247 for mentorship. Nja247 had previously filled sanction proposals against me, yet, I asked him anyways because he knew how to cite properly. Arbitration was notified by e-mail before the deadline that a mentor could not be found. With: Nja247's, Horaland, and Sifaka's help, my citations now are up to standard.

I also took to heart the criticism made of me at arbitration that I did not support my claims. A lot of time was spent proofing the article and then indicating in talk 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. [13] [14] [15] Fifteen of these threads require action. I did edit the article but found that once again these edits were reverted or altered, [16] even though other editors had approved them. [17] No proper explanation was given. When edits are not respected, and well researched posts in talk get ignored, it seemed pointless spending time in the normal editing cycle. In such circumstances why is it "intolerable" to ask for mediation and to seek true consensus? Their case is totally based on bad faith assumptions, false accusations, and innuendo.

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Editors_encouraged
• My desired remedy would be,,, An editing restriction has been placed on scuro which restricts him from any attempt to stop editors or wiki projects from editing ADHD article or he will be subject to a block for up to a week.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like this remedy to be altered to where it becomes a blockable violation to try to prevent other editors, wiki projects (eg wiki med, wiki pharm etc) from intervening. Unfortunately it appears that scuro has been trying to avoid the intervention of wiki projects.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Collaboration_of_the_Week#ADHD_stuff Please also remember to read the collapsed discussion as well and to click on my "diffs" on that page. As noted in previous evidence the claims that scuro "drives editors away" is not a new problem or allegation.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence#Scuro.27s_ownership_but_accusing_oponents_of_ownership Another example of trying to get Wiki Med involved,[18] and scuro's evading a direct answer.[19]--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Things then reached a head when I made one last attempt to get scuro to support a Wiki Med collaboration,[20], Doc James then also asks a direct question regarding blocking Wiki Med intervention,[21], scuro ignors direct questions and simply character assasinates calling us antipsychistrists.[22] I found this insulting as I take as much issue with antipsychiatry as I believe their agenda is harmful and most of what they say is nonsense or out of context and can be harmful to the general public and do not want to be associated with them. Here is direct link which is also given on wiki project collaboration on doc James talk page.[23]

Reply to Unionhawk

I do not mind Unionhawk trying mediation for content issues and regular drama issues and will accept such a proposal after this urgent issue is dealt with. However, I don't think that blocking wiki projects from editing the article is something we can mediate about.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

response to scuro and evidence for arbcom

In the short period since the arbcom ADHD case closed there have been 5 archives on the ADHD talk page in addition to what is on the active talk page. This is an enormous amount of text to expect editors to reply to, it is not surprising with sometimes several sections being created each day that some got "ignored" or the conversation died out, we can't endlessly go back and forth arguing spending several hours or more on ADHD talk pages most nights. We are volunteers, unpaid, have jobs, family and social life to fit into this as well. I personally had to become involved in resolving undue weight and poor referencing format on quinolone antibiotic articles which needed more urgent attention.[24] and [25] (check before and after of articles, major work on refs and content) as well as work on other wiki articles so had less time. I am sure other editors have similar reasons for not responding. Further, much of the disputes scuro raised did not involve edits which I had added originally and I had stated in arbcom that I wanted to back away from the ADHD article. It should be noted that the decision to mark a discussion resolved or unresolved etc is done by scuro rather than someone independent and I felt getting wiki Med involved might help. Having said that if you review the archives there was quite a lot of issues that were resolved, so there has been some progress since arbcom closed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestions are good and I am happy to try dispute resolution and mediation in future. I think a solution is also for scuro to vote to support ADHD Wiki Med collaboration and for us both to agree publicly to be civil. That would really help the situation I feel. I suggest strengthening the ammendments and giving the situation another chance rather than topic ban. We have not reached the stage of needing to resort to topic ban which is an extreme measure. I apologise again for any disruption that I have caused in this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Appeal for resolution to scuro

You have appealed for people to talk to you to work things out and I am happy to try and do this. This could all be worked out and you could prove us all wrong by simply voting to support Wiki Med collab and agree along with I to remain civil. Then we can put all of this behind us. What say you? Would you vote to support ADHD article on Wiki Med collaboration project?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes Literaturegeek, I can envision a time in the near future where I would be happy to vote for the article. Scuro the article has been nominated for over a year now and you have been opposing it for almost six months, before I started editing the ADHD pages. The alledged ownership reasons no longer exist as Doc James is seriously restricting his editing on wikipedia and may even have left wikipedia entirely due to drama. No more excuses, no more oppostion, support Wiki Med collaboration please. I am willing to mediate for other issues and I will abide by arbcom rules and recommendations, can you also abide by arbcom which encouraged us to seek input from Wiki Projects by you supporting Wiki Med Collab today. Lets get fresh eyes on the articles by people who diagnose the disorder and treat it. It is all that I ask of you.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have made comments on scuro's talk page with the view of resolving the core issues. I see no reason to continue this conversation any further and fill up this ammendment request.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A positive update

Scuro and I have made significant progresss in resolving core issues, see User_talk:Scuro#What_can_be_done and User_talk:Literaturegeek#compromise. I am pleased to report that scuro has signed up to the Wiki Med collaboration project intervention for ADHD with a vote of support,Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Collaboration_of_the_Week#ADHD. We have also both agreed to ways of resolving disputes and finding middle ground. As the main issue of me filing this arbcom ammendment request was because of an ongoing issue of scuro not involving WikiMed I and this is now resolved I see no reason in persuing this ammendment request any further.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I also feel happy that scuro has a mentor now. This should be good when discussing refs and with what is and what is not fringe etc. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

ARRGH!!! *smacks head against keyboard repeatedly*...

Anyway, I just now realized how unclear my position was on this; we do not need to deal punishment (which ArbCom ultimately does), which will be temporary, and then require more and more of these, we need to work something out. Scuro, I appreciate your offer of you, hyperion, and I working something out, but, honestly, mediation would not have worked at all without at least LG of Doc James in the conversation.

Scuro, just know that pushing that an article not become the MCOTW because there are unresolved issues makes no sense; more eyes, voices, opinions, and otherwise, will help tremendously with these issues. You may as well support it! Collaboration from a WikiProject is a good thing, and I'm honestly surprised that after months and 12 !votes, it still hasn't become the MCOTW.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 03:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Key Points

• We need to work something out, not deal out punishment (this one is directed at Doc James and Literaturegeek)
• Keeping an article from becoming MCOTW due to problems in it makes no sense; MCOTW≠Medical Selected article (this one is directed at scuro)--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 03:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Side-note

Has scuro (talk · contribs) been assigned a mentor yet? If not, the ArbCom should go about assigning him one.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 03:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Good news indeed

It appears that this has been resolved. I would agree with closure.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 17:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The proposed change in "amendment 2" seeks to specifically single out Scuro with further sanctions. Literaturegeek wants that an "editing restriction" be "placed on Scuro which restricts him from any attempt to stop editors or wiki projects from editing ADHD article or he will be subject to a block of up to a week". She is not specific, but one assumes the restriction would require oversight and approval before I edit any ADHD article. Remedy 7 which is titled, "Editors are encouraged", currently states, "All editors ... area are encouraged to seek outside editorial assistance (by way of a request for comment, or by seeking input from relevant WikiProjects) in resolving the editorial disagreements...". Outside editorial assistance was sought after arbitration, specifically for the The social construct theory which states ADHD is fake. The issue was brought up to determine the proper weighting for this theory. [26] The notion that I do not seek outside assistance is bogus. Literaturegeeks reasons that the remedy must specifically refer to Scuro because, "...Scuro has been trying to avoid the intervention of wiki projects for various reasons..." The assumption is that he doesn't want the article chosen, and that he purposely use behaviours such as "delaying tactics", and "ignoring or arguing around direct questions", to achieve his goal. These are assumptions of "bad faith" and mischaracterizations of the truth. They imply and assume motives and actions of someone of poor character. The notion of poor character is further cemented with additional bogus allegations of wrongdoing, and a dredging up of misrepresented past history. As in the past, this approach is inflammatory and destabilizing. Over the half year there have been many bogus allegations, some serious, [27] [28] some recent. [29].

This dispute is all about the nomination process of the ADHD article to MCOTW article of the week. We need to get some perspective here. Comment was sought and I have responded with my opinion in "good faith" for the betterment of the wiki project. It is an action of "bad faith" to believe that there are sinister motives behind my comments. Collaboration means to work jointly with others. This has been my persistent complaint, that even when I do all that they want of me, true collaboration doesn't happen. To invite others to the page while excluding one from the editing process, is not collaboration. Some may feel that this point does not override a larger goal, but my opinion has merit. Collaboration in cases of disagreement require an earnest attempt at reconciliation. Unionhawk "broke the ice" recently. His mediation request did not mention MCOTW. The simple goals of his mediation request, such as no personal attacks, the mediation request was rejected because it was not supported. This dispute specifically started when Literaturegeek personalized the MCOTW talk page by stating, "you seem to really not want doctors or pharmacologists to review the article..." [30] Had she contacted me to inquire about my concerns, she would have received a respectful and informative answer and something could have been arranged. Instead she posted an administrative block warning on my talk page,[31] which was reported to Xeno. [32]. That led to a major flare up with serious accusations made by LG[33]. The thread ends with a plea for Literaturegeek to commit as I did, to strictly focus on content.[34]

There is no reason why we should be meeting again. They should of: approached me on my talk page, sought a third opinion, tried mediation, or outside advice, for any new problem. How would these contributors determine that they were 100% in the right? With all of these blowups they virtually always seek sanctions before the problem has even been discussed. To restrict me further would be to reward those who don't collaborate and use wiki processes in a harassing manner. It would also punish an individual who has made every effort to improve.--scuro (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hordaland and Literaturegeek - clarify these possible bad faith or bogus allegations

During arbitration over 70 alegations were made. (see itemized list after the third paragraph of link) No one had to account for any of the bogus or bad faith allegations made. Abd who alleged that I "drove editors away" never responded to evidence which refuted his claim. LG continues to make this claim. The following allegatons below have been made during this request. I request that Horaland and Literaturegeek substantiate their claims or they recant what has been posted.

• "delaying tactics"
• "his methods of communicating are not conducive to the kinds of cooperation needed..."
• "disruptive"
• "trying to block collaboration"
• "drives editors away" - (this allegation has been throughly refuted and Literaturegeek is aware of this)--scuro (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hordaland2

My apologies for mispelling your name once more, that really shouldn't of happened. Thank you for striking out the accusation of "delaying tactics".

In this forum communication is happening. Concerns are raised, they are considered, and they are responded to. That is all that I have ever asked for. There are are 15 threads in these links which require action.[35] [36] 8 Threads are tagged with "not done", "deadlocked", or "unresolved"...for easy reference. These threads, along with my many appeals for mediation, a meeting of the minds, etc...demonstrate someone seeking collaboration. You have yet to demonstrate that I am, "trying to block collaboration", evidence please.

The diffs you have provided demonstrate my requests for further action: "...when those who hold opposing viewpoints can agree upon something...Will you attempt that with me...?" and "I would really appreciate it if you folks came to the table". Have I become more insistent with my requests? Yes I have. It's been over a year since I have sought collaboration, and it is only with Unionhawk that I have seen the first positive movement. There is an easy solution here to improve the general decorum. As two reasonable people we could get this done tonight. I pledge to answer questions on the talk page and resolve differences by whatever means necessary. It would be very much appreciated if you could also make that pledge. It would be great to get this behind us and move forward.--scuro (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hordaland3

Yes I agree with you, these Amendment requests are all about my comments at MCOTW. Could you please point out on my talk page, or give a direct link whereby any of you spoke to me, off of the MCOTW talk page, or tried to seek common ground on in any other fashion such as mediation, on this issue? Yes, I agree that there was spirited discussion on the MCOTW, but even there the responses typically were an admonishment of my opinion. Also I asked you previously for evidence of my unwillingness to collaborate since arbitration. Could you please provide that evidence? Thank you.--scuro (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Literaturegeek2

"If you follow the link to the MCOTW talk page and click on the diffs over there you will see a dispute on Doc James's talk page where you tried successfully to delay (and actually stop) the MCOTW. I don't need to submit any more evidence I feel". I looked Literaturegeek....I must of missed it, I even took a look on Doc Jame's talk page. Can you provide a direct link? Also can you provide evidence, post arbitration, for the "disruptive" accusation? Finally, the "driving editors away" accusation was refuted, and Abd refused to respond to the refuting evidence that I provided, even though I asked him to do so several times. If you are making the same accusation again, could you please respond to the refuting evidence given at Arb Com? Thank you. --scuro (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am no longer actively editing Wikipedia and therefore have nothing to add that has not already been said.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

choosing participants

• Why were other involved persons not notified?--scuro (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

looking at past remedies and the current actions of all participants

• I may like to add my own amendment request(s), could I simply add them to the other two requests?--scuro (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, you may. But the priority is to enact the mentorship remedy. I'm aware of the discussion here, and I'm puzzled by the claim that you contacted us to tell us you had failed to find a mentor. I've searched the arbitration mailing list archives and found nothing. Did you contact us somewhere on-wiki? If you e-mailed us, was it the mailing list or an individual arbitrator? Could you tell us the date you sent the e-mail (if it was an e-mail), and e-mail us now so we can cross-reference the e-mail address? Carcharoth (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • Just a gentle reminder that I've been given permission to make further amendments, if I choose to do so, before this request closes. I understand that there is a process, and that certain things must get done first.--scuro (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
                  • "been given permission" where? when? by whom? - Hordaland (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
                    • Read the two posts above.--scuro (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
                      • Sincere apologies, Scuro. A temporary (I hope!) failure of my reading ability. - Hordaland (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
                        • Not a problem at all...no worries. Apology accepted!--scuro (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • I have forwarded the original e-mail back to this address arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org, as I was requested to do. That e-mail was sent on August 8th at 2:57 pm.--scuro (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Nothing yet. Could you send it to my e-mail address, which is listed at WP:ARBCOM (or click the e-mail user link at my user page)? Thanks. Once we are in touch, we can work out what went wrong here. Carcharoth (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
        • The forwarded e-mail has just been sent.--scuro (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Thanks. Just noting here for the record that after several test e-mails and trying to work out what was wrong, it seems that the problem has been fixed. It was a problem at our end, as far as I can tell, so I'm going to state here that Scuro did send us an e-mail stating that he had failed to find a mentor, and that it never reached us through no fault of his own. As a consequence, the bit about ArbCom needing to assign a mentor should be considered to start now, rather than on 8th August. I've made some enquiries, and I'm hopeful that a mentor can be sorted out. If all the parties to this request could take that into consideration, and Scuro's comment below, that would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
            • Would that consideration extend the date of mentorship paste August 8th 2010?--scuro (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
              • If the mentorship works out and is productive, the end date is not really a concern. Even after the mentorship ends, you are likely to want to go to that person for advice anyway. It should be seen as an opportunity to be welcomed, rather than a restriction to be ended. I would suggest waiting until July or August next year, and considering this question then. Carcharoth (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

a request not to act until the facts have been examined

• A plea to the administrators - Can I be allowed to fully respond to bogus accusations before assumptions are made, and actions are taken? There has been a lengthy history of bogus accusations having being made against me. That most recently happend last week when literaturegeek accused me of harbouring a meat puppet. No injunction is needed. Ask and I will do what is required.--scuro (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • What would be best is for you to not edit in this topic area until a mentor is arranged (which should be shortly, as I've noted). I think, from what you've said, that you will agree to such a voluntary restriction, but could you confirm that please? Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with committing to a fixed date, say Oct 1st., and would agree to extensions if requested. Is this reasonable?--scuro (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
      • The need for a voluntary editing restriction of any length should be examined. There was very little editing of the topic pages recently. The issue is whether giving an opinion at MCOTW, where it is requested, is a behaviour that should be sanctioned. Key claims by the complainants appear to be bogus, and an editing restriction also discourages mediation and collaboration by giving the parties who have avoided these processes, what they want. In effect, we have moral hazard. I will not edit until I have been given permission to do so.--scuro (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

serious unaddressed behaviours

• • • • • The reason I asked you to confirm your offer of a voluntary restriction was to put things in a holding pattern until a mentor could be sorted out. Hopefully that will happen before 1st October, but if not, then we will take things at that point and see what can be done. Carcharoth (talk) 06:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Missing from the amendment requests, are a number of serious unaddressed behaviours which need to be dealt with. They include the repeated assumption of bad faith, the repeated personalization of issues, and repeatedly making of false accusations. It is my opinion that beyond edit warring, these behaviours have led to virtually all of our difficulties in the collaborative process. Would it be acceptable to deal with the first two amendment requests and then look at these issues?--scuro (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Also I'd like arbitration to consider if this particular Amendment request is a form intentional or unintentional harassment. I'd like the committee to consider this because: i)of the assumptions of bad faith, ii)the reasoning behind bringing such an inconsequential case forward, iii)and that no other means of dispute resolution or even direct communication was attempted for this specific issue.--scuro (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Further, arb com should consider that even when asked to do so, those who made allegations, "failed to even to attempt to substantiate allegations of misconduct levelled at other editors".--scuro (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

they seek sanctions only?

During arbitration there were about a dozen direct appeals at seeking some solution through other means then sanctions [37]. Every appeal was either rejected or ignored. There was not one instance that I can recall when any of the complaints had come to the table pre-arbitration. Recently I appealed to Literaturegeek, "...the behaviour can simply stop if we all commit to STRICTLY focus on content. I commit to that right now... can others not also commit to a new beginning"?[38] She never responded. During this AR Hordaland was asked, "as two reasonable people we could get this done tonight. I pledge to answer questions on the talk page and resolve differences by whatever means necessary. It would be very much appreciated if you could also make that pledge. It would be great to get this behind us and move forward"[39]. Literaturegeek or Hordaland, can you speak to this blanket avoidance of any sort basic agreement, or any form of collaboration?--scuro (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Any progress?

It's almost a week since we've heard from member(s) of ArbCom. Is anything happening? Thanks. - Hordaland (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. We were waiting to hear back from possible mentors. Should be an update within a few days. The voluntary restriction from Scuro above should be enough in the meantime. It would be appreciated if further comments to this amendment request could be kept to a minimum. There is plenty here for us to look at when we get round to it. Carcharoth (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana's request

I open to discussion here, I've always been open to any sort of process. But, I don't at all agree that this is an apples to apples comparison. Still, I am very willing to examine things and see where my perspective could be wrong. I am willing to discuss matters in the most civil way, using any ground rules, or any process chosen.--scuro (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to also add that I would enter any such process: unconditionally, with total good faith, looking forwards, and seeking solutions.--scuro (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hordaland quotes Vassyana recently as stating, "...sit down to talk about things in a nice, calm manner, and get a friendly volunteer to help sort things out." I didn't see that post but I agree with it. Hordaland believes that a mentor is needed for me before discussion begins. May I gently remind everyone that the remedy of a mentor was for citations only. Talk to me...it really hasn't been tried in the past. I do so much want to work together, it is all I have ever wanted on the articles. From my perspective we could have great progress quickly. It would be very simple to commit to basic tenants like, commenting on content only and not the contributor. We can personally commit to the remedies of arbitration. That would be a huge first step, and stop most of the blow-ups. From there we can discuss past issues with guidance. I am open to doing this anyway desired, the only thing I would like to see is an intimate conversation. I would like to request that initially, it would be a one on one discussion. It can be with Hordaland, or Literaturegeek, or whomever. It would be my opinion that this option would see the quickest progress in the friendliest manner.--scuro (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes Literaturegeek, I can envision a time in the near future where I would be happy to vote for the article. If we can, lets look forward and get some things done. Is it okay that the discussion is between us only? Can we agree to strictly follow the arbitration remedies, and basic tenants of wikipedia? If we are at that point then we could get off this page and go to med cab.

I can extend a peace offering to to you. At med cab, if a mediator at any time thought that I should nominate the article, I would do so.--scuro (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

LG, do you think now is the best time for a Wiki Med community collaboration on the article? I am under a voluntary editing restriction, we are in the middle of arbitration amendment request where we have both been threatened with a topic block, and animosity still exists. Wouldn't a better time be when we are on the same page and the dust has settled? I did offer to put this in the mediator's hands. Is that not a reasonable solution? Let the mediator choose at what point he thinks we should move on to editing together, or if he is so inclined, to request that I sign on right away to the Wiki Med collaboration. If I went back on my word and refused to sign when requested, wouldn't you have excellent evidence of a disruptive editor?--scuro (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

My offer to sign on is unconditional, and not restricted by a time limit. If at any point a mediator decides that I should sign on, I will do so. Yes, I agree, trying to solve things on someone's talk page is a great idea for avoiding conflict.

At this point I would prefer mediation. There is a little too much looking backwards happening, and I believe a mediator would be helpful to determine goals and keep us focused on future objectives. But, perhaps you have excellent reasons why you think a talk page would be better. If so, I'm all ears. In the meantime can get two things done now? Lg, can we agree that this discussion is restricted to ourselves, and possibly a mediator. Can we also agree to strictly follow the arbitration remedies and basic wiki tenants?--scuro (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. Are you worried that this could all go around in circles for an "unlimited" amount of time, and that wiki med will never be able to fix content disputes that we have now? If so, tell me what you want, and tell me how to get it, addressing my concerns. You can even pinpoint which of my concerns or requests, you believe to be totally unreasonable, and I may very will act upon your observations. I am worried that there are major ongoing behaviour issues that have not been addressed, and that things will slide back into predictable patterns if we don't do something now. I would really like to make amends and put this all behind us. What solutions do you offer, how would it get done, and what are you willing to agree to right now?--scuro (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What if everything I have said was in good faith? I can offer to sign up if that is what stops you from committing to anything. What can you agree to? How do you picture us making a major step forward to collaborative editing?--scuro (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

stop poking each other with sharp sticks

Hordaland, what I have posted recently is a very sincere attempt at reconciliation. I'd ask you kindly from picking at these posts and rehashing old issues. We all know what your proposed amendment states. You believe it to be very necessary, I believe it based on bogus accusations and bad faith assumptions, and without merit. Can we leave it at that? If the administrators believe that my talk page behaviour since arbitration requires further sanctions, then so be it. Carcharoth has asked us not to post further material and I'd ask you most kindly to follow his request.--scuro (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear clerk.

Do not archive this amendment request. There are still important long standing issues that have never been addressed, and at a bare minimum these issues have to be examined. Guidance from the arbitration committee has been asked for, and I await their reply.--scuro (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I just want to inform the committee that I've picked up Scuro as his mentor (User_talk:Scuro#Mentorship...) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Update

Since it sounds like this amendment request may be closed soon, I'll give an update. LG and I did make some progress in discussions, but they stopped a few days ago. We have agreed to follow the tenants of undue weight, and we have also agreed that discussion is useful. There still are several significant content issues that need to be agreed to, but more importantly behaviour issues that need to be ironed out. False accusations and bad faith assumptions have been a part of every completed sanction process with these editors, and it was a part of this amendment request. This should not be allowed to happen, and it must stop. This is abuse. I fear this behaviour may continue because neither LG or Hordaland have made a commitment to stop these practices, nor have they committed to focus strictly on content. This should be addressed within this amendment request with more amendments, as I was given permission to do, or it can be done some other way. But it is time to deal with this.--scuro (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• This looks almost stale, I'll be archiving in a day or two. MBisanz ^talk 12:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Please don't archive as we need to look closer into the situation and make further comments. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Noting here that Literaturegeek is happy for the request to be closed. I have asked Hordaland and Unionhawk if they are also happy for it to be closed. Doc James (Jmh649)'s statement indicates no need for a follow-up there. Carcharoth (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• These two amendments should be merged. I've now done that. Carcharoth (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

  Response to amendment 1 (from Hordaland): I agree that such an amendment (as proposed by Hordaland) is needed. I will propose a motion to that effect in a few minutes after input from other arbitrators and Scuro. Carcharoth (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

  Response to amendment2 (from Literaturegeek): This is a problem that shouldn't have arisen. Such collaboration is indeed to be encouraged, but I would suggest delaying such until a mentor is found for Scuro, or an injunction passed topic-banning him until a mentor is found. I intend to propose such an injunction, in relation to the amendment filed by Hordaland. Carcharoth (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

  Apologies for the delay in getting back to this. The original amendment asked what was being done about Scuro's mentorship remedy, and I am afraid to say that the editors I contacted to ask if they were willing to mentor Scuro have not responded, or are too busy to take this on. I have made one final attempt, but failing that, I am minded to proceed with the double topic ban remedy proposed by Vassyana below. Before that step is reached, could I ask that in the next few days the editors who have posted above make some effort to further refactor and reduce and summarise what they have said, and stick to the focus of the amendment request. Please do not add yet more text to read. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  Formally acknowledging here that Xavexgoem is now mentoring Scuro. I am leaving a note at Scuro's talk page to remind Scuro and Xavexgoem of the exact wording used here. Tomorrow, I will try and work out if there is anything else here that still needs addressing. There were, I believe, plans for a WikiProject Medicine collaboration on the ADHD article. Hopefully the parties to this request can move ahead with that if it has not already taken place. It would probably be a good idea for Scuro and Xavexgoem to sort out the terms of the mentorship before Scuro gets too involved in anything related to the ADHD article. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  Noting here my awareness too of the failure of the mentorship (no fault on the part of Xavexgoem) and endorsing Vassyana's approach below. All comments should now be made at the motions page, not here. There is more than enough text here to read. Statements made by the parties at the motion should be brief and limited and directly relevant to the proposed motions. Carcharoth (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm reviewing this matter now, and will respond later today. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• I will note that the extensive wall of text here (and in linked areas) makes it clear that some assistance is required. The ideal solution would be for everyone involved to stop poking each other with sharp sticks, sit down to talk about things in a nice, calm manner, and get a friendly volunteer to help sort things out. This is hardly a one-sided situation and arguing about whose poking is worse is anything but helpful. In my view, LG and scuro both seem to have personalized this dispute, continued derailing discussions with personal commentary, and persist in exagerrating (if not outright misrepresenting) the comments of the other and other editors. I'm inclined to topic ban both of you from the ADHD topic area to allow room for other editors to breathe and work on the topic. I am open to persuasion that both editors can follow the ideal solution I mention above, but I am highly skeptical at this point. Vassyana (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• The situation seems to have improved. Scuro has a mentor. I am glad to have my skepticism proved wrong. I hope that this productive trend continues and look forward to the improvement of our coverage in the topic area. Vassyana (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Given the failure of my hopes for an improved climate moving forward and continuing personalization of this dispute, I have proposed motions topic banning Scuro and Literaturegeek. Vassyana (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Case affected

Obama articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 13) Grundle2600 admonished and restricted

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Jayron32 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [40]

• Grundle2600 admonished and restricted request to expand restricted actions to include "all types of tendentious editing including, but not limited to, WP:POINT, WP:SOAP, WP:COATRACK violations, etc. etc."

Grundle is under an admonishment and editing restriction of 1RR/week for his part in perpetuating tendendious edit wars at Obama-related articles. At Presidency of Barack Obama, he added a statement to the article which other editors challenged in good faith: see [41] for chronology of edits. He made his edit at 22:43, October 12 and was subsequently reverted. His immediate response was to tag the article with an Advertisement tag, which seems a blatant violation of WP:POINT, and given his history with problems of this nature, such violations should not go unattended to. The current ArbCom sanctions only deal explicitly with reverting, but does not cover such eggregious point-making attempts explicitly. Asking for clarification/ammendement to the case to make explicit that such actions are not particularly good. --Jayron32 03:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Ncmvocalist below, thank you for doing more legwork to dig up the now-expired community sanctions. I was unaware of that. I should note that Grundle2600 has, to my experience, been civil and courteous in talk page discussions, but the sort of passive-aggressive pointmaking behavior of deliberately misapplying a maintenance tag to make a WP:POINT about his personal opinion over an article seems disruptive beyond the pale. Normally, I would have merely warned him, or perhaps gone to ANI about this, but given his long history of problems at political articles, and the existing ArbCom sanction, both he AND the community are well aware of the prior problems he has had in this area, and he should be expected to know better. I do want to clarify that I don't necessarily seek a block right now over this singular incident, but rather to close a loophole in the ArbCom sanctions which, while preventing reverting, do not seem to cover this sort of tendentious, pointy disruption. I just think we need to broaden the sanctions to make sure that he cannot continue to be disruptive in other ways besides reverting. --Jayron32 13:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding to several comments below, general tones, rather than specific editors. Let me make it clear that, in general, I am not asking that Grundle2600 be restricted from editing these articles, even editing them boldly, or engaging in civil talk page discussions regarding his edits. I fully support his doing so. We need alternate viewpoints and different voices at all articles at Wikipedia, including the Obama articles, and I have no problem in general with Grundle2600 over his content editing or his talk page discussions. What I am finding a big problem is the sort of pointy disruption where, when he doesn't get his way right away, he starts to drop clearly inappropriate tags on articles. I could even, possibly, maybe, a little bit excuse the use of a {{POV}} tag if he genuinely felt that the article only presented general praise of Obama (overt praise being distinctly different from lack of criticism), but the use of a tag like {{advertisement}} is a grossly disruptive act, and should not happen again. He should make bold edits. He should discuss these when they are contested, and provide relevent sources to back his position in civil discussion on talk pages, but he should NOT be encouraged to use tags as an act of rebellion against an article when he doesn't get his way. --Jayron32 20:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Grundle2600. You've been here 2 1/2 years. To claim that you "didn't know" what the advertisement tag said or how to check what it said before you posted it, or anything like that, is plainly dishonest. Either a) you knew exactly what it said, and you pu it in the article anyways as an act of willful defiance or b) you added it without knowing what it said, and without caring what it said. You cannot claim naivitee on this one, given how long you have been here. You'd have been much better off saying nothing than claiming such an act was some sort of honest mistake. That statement alone appears disingenuous on the face. --Jayron32 02:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

A clarification or amendment by ArbCom would be most helpful in avoiding the endless "disrupt-receive warning-wait till everyone forgets-disrupt again" cycle which inevitably befalls these situations. What inevitably happens is that if an admin were to block someone like Grundle for a disruption like this, they would get unblocked as "having not been warned" or something like that. All I was asking for from ArbCom is clarification that disruption of the nature noted is explicitly blockable on the first occurance. I am not asking that Grundle2600 be topic banned or otherwise restricted from Obama articles, ONLY that Grundle2600 is expressly forbidden from disrupting the articles when he doesn't get his way. --Jayron32 05:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I was doing a bit of maintenance work on WP:RESTRICT and discovered that Grundle2600 was under a community topic ban (per this discussion) from articles related to US politics and politicians, from 25 June 2009 until 25 September 2009 (but the restriction explicitly allowed him to make suggestions and participate in discussion on talk pages provided he is civil and respectful to others.) Although Grundle2600 seemed to comply with this restriction for the duration specified, the moment it expired, he returned to editing those articles. I picked a handful of edits that were occurring on the articles he returned to - make of it what you will:

• 25 September 2009: [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]
• 26 Sept 2009: [47] [48]
• 26 & 27 Sept 2009: [49] [50] [51] [52]
• 5 October 2009: [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]
• 12 October 2009: [58] [59] [60] [61]
• 13 October 2009: [62] [63]

Note: there may be other edits (good or bad) that I did not pick up on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Jayron32 above, I can see what you're saying, and my opinion is no different to yours on whether a block is necessary over this incident (particularly at this late point). I also recall Grundle's edits (raised by Tarc below) to check how many minutes were left on his restriction which concerned me at the time; I considered it may resolve itself with time - obviously, it hasn't. Though I'd support attempts to close loopholes, I'm unconvinced that it will, on its own, resolve the underlying issues in this case; I don't think there will be a reform in his conduct as he doesn't seem to understand the issues with the edits above, let alone this particular incident. In such circumstances, something more may be needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In line with the comments below, I've taken it to ANI so that the community can attempt to impose further sanctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban reimposed indefinitely; ban also extended to any pages relating to US politics or politicians. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk request - Can you provide diffs/links to the imposition of this topic ban please? Manning (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

See [64] & [65]; seems it is no longer on the page after this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - what you gave me was enough to track down the archived version. Manning (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

After I added well sourced, relevant information to the article, people kept erasing the parts that were critical of Obama.

Without the criticsm, the article was POV, and looked like an advertisement, which is why I added the tags.

On this section of the article's talk page, I said:

"Saying "nope" is not a legitimate reason to remove large amounts of relevant, well sourced material."

"The person, PhGustaf, who made this edit, which removed a substanial amount of material, commented by saying "nope" and nothing else. The material that they removed had been discussed extensively on the talk page and talk page archive before it was added. Saying "nope" is not a legitimate reason to remove relevant, well sourced material."

"Removing large amounts of well sourced, relevant material that is critical of the subject makes the article POV and also makes it look like an advertisement. I have added the POV and advertisement tags to the article."

"NPOV states: "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.""

"Why is it OK for the article to mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not OK for it to mention his actions in favor of offshore drilling?"

"How can anyone say that including his actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV?"

"There was consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling. Also please explain why you think citing one of those things without simultaneously citing the other does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use, and avoided reporting the statutory rape of a 15 year old student? If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent? How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable? How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party not relevant to the section on those czars?"

Thus, I did a very throrough job of explaining how the article was POV and looked like an advertisement. I also discussed these things in several other sections of the talk page, some of which are now in the talk page archives.

To anyone who thinks I should be punished for my actions, please answer the following question: How can anyone say that including his actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."?

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I misunderstood what the Advertisement tag was for. I won't make that mistake again.

There is nothing wrong with me making posts on my own talk page to make absolutely sure that I did not edit political articles before my topic ban expired.

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the people who want me to be punished have answered my questions in this arbitration discussion. Likewise, none of the people who want my additions to the article to be removed have answered my questions on the article's talk page. Without the things that I added, the article violates NPOV. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Grsz, my comments on the talk page that you pointed out are perfectly appropriate, and not in violation of any rules. The people who keep erasing the content from the article are the ones in violation of the rules, because NPOV states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." There was consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling. Also please explain why you think citing one of those things without simultaneously citing the other does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use, and avoided reporting the statutory rape of a 15 year old student? If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent? How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable? How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party not relevant to the section on those czars? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Note - I'm a party to the original case but more or less uninvolved in this particular editing dispute

I've watched this without becoming involved other than to wish Grundle2600 well and remove a couple tags I thought he was too hasty to place on an article[66] (leading to a polite discussion between us). Just a quick impression here. I know some editors are frustrated with Grundle2600's ongoing participation, in the form of suggestions and now edits to add material they consider biased and where they see sourcing / synthesis problems. Although not always ideal, Grundle's proposals and their rejection look to be a series of content disputes no worse than what goes on every day and gets handled through normal process. It is here again only because there was a prior Arbcom case. But for that this is a routine matter well within the ability of the community to deal with. I don't think we would have an Arbcom case in the first place if this were the worst things got. What I'm trying to say is that this strikes me as under the radar. I don't really have any objective way to prove that or any diffs, just a hunch that we can all work constructively with Grundle2600 if we want, which should be the preference rather than giving up. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

See this edit and this discussion. I would like this editor to succeed in appropriately having his point of view added to the encyclopedia, but he is not listening and making WP:POINTs instead of consenus-driven contributions. I support the amendment proposed, but am concerned that it may not be enough to prevent this editor from gaming the system. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc.

In addition, if you look at the editor's contributions since this Amendment request, you'll see that the behavior of concern noted here continues unabated, even after the editor's statement (which strains credulity in that he asserts a position regarding WP:NPOV that, after all this time and all these interventions, is not supported by the facts).

Finally, if you look at Talk:2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize#Obama_sends_another_13.2C000_troops_to_Afghanistan_less_than_one_week_after_Nobel_Peace_Prize_win, he admits to adding a new section despite knowing that "it didn't need its own section - it's just that I didn't know where else to put it" and "the information itself is relevant, because of the incredible irony involved". I cannot believe that the editor fails to understand that both of these positions are incorrect behavior.

Thus, I've stricken my support for this amendment, and instead call for an indefinite ban from all Obama-related articles, broadly defined, in all namespaces. I hope then that the editor can find other areas in WP in which to contribute (and does not end up with a political topic ban, broadly defined). --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Referring again to Talk:2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize#Obama_sends_another_13.2C000_troops_to_Afghanistan_less_than_one_week_after_Nobel_Peace_Prize_win, either this editor knows what he is doing is wrong (and thus is being disingenuous and purposefully disruptive), or does not understand despite being told/warned/blocked/sanctioned/guided/warned-again/etc (and is being unintentionally disruptive, but disruptive nonetheless and, so far, incapable of learning). I don't see a middle ground. How will being "mentored" help him change his ways? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Grundle that "nope" is a rude edit summary. But, this has been going on for too long. Grundle is consistently polite and pleasant on talk pages, but consistently reposts the same old stuff rejected repeatedly by consensus. His three-month hiatus didn't work. User:wikidemon has been extraordinarily supportive of Grundle. If they both agree, perhaps a mentorship is in order. PhGustaf (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc that Grundle has worked the doe-eyed naif role too long. PhGustaf (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that any new or refreshed restrictions apply to talk pages too. There's no utility in recycling the same cheap shots over and over. PhGustaf (talk)

Honestly, I think the time has come to drop the hammer here. Compared to serial disruptors such as ChildofMidnight, sure, Grundle looks unassuming, but looking at the overall approach of these two to Obama/political-related articles is like watching a case of good-cop-bad-cop. That Grundle is taking the honey approach rather than the vinegar shouldn't mean that his transgressions should be dealt with more leniently than others.

We have the recent editing linked to here. We have the long, long, long talk page histories at Talk:Gerald Walpin, Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama, and Talk:Political positions of Barack Obama, where he picked up the same exact arguments left off months ago before the topic ban. Christ, he was making test edits to his talk page to measure to the minute when the topic ban would expire!

Enough is enough. Tarc (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't even know what to describe it as, but this chain ([67], [68], [69], [70]) is inappropriate. He then re-added all the contentious material previously removed and discussed. Grundle refuses to get the point. There is a mechanism that can deal with this besides constantly coming to ARBCOM, but I am unsure why nobody with the tools will act. Grsz¹¹ 23:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

• Subject has been put under a community topic ban. (link to debate). The consensus-approved wording was "Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks." Manning (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I've never seen anyone do this and this before. Thanks to Tarc for pointing that out. I will wait for further statements from my fellow arbitrators, and an explanation from Grundle, but counting down the minutes until a topic ban expires shows completely the wrong attitude. I've also reviewed the edits provided by Ncmvocalist, and I see Grundle reigniting old battles. Also, this is not good conduct. I would support a motion to extend the restrictions in some way, while also noting the statement by Wikidemon. Carcharoth (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Appears to have been resolved by community topic ban. As far as I'm concerned, nothing further needed from ArbCom here, though this request should still be archived to the case talk page for the record, and possibly the community ban noted on the main case page as well, for future reference. Carcharoth (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• I am entirely unclear why this is at ArbCom's doorstep. Previous ongoing problems with the editor were handled by a community ban previously and the topic area is under probation. I do not see why these community tools would be insufficient to address this situation. Vassyana (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• In response to Jayron's request for clarification: An editor that has been repeatedly warned about a particular sort of conduct need not receive fresh warnings for every new instance. This is trebly true for an editor that was previously subjected to serious sanctions for such behavior (such as a community ban). The purpose of providing a warning is to give an editor a fair opportunity to become aware concerns, understand them, and adjust their behavior accordingly (in accord with the spirit of WP:BITE and WP:AGF). It should not be used as a wikilawyering weapon when the editor has received plenty of such guidance. Vassyana (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• If the community wants to re-start the topic ban then go for it. Or are we being asked to implement one? Wizardman 15:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Hiding (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Asgardian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae#Asgardian restricted, for one year from December 2007, Asgardian was "limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should he exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." I'd like to clarify what the current situation would be with regards this sanction? I accept that the sanction has now expired, but if I feel it should be re-instated I'd like to clarify the process for re-instating it. Is another arbitration case the only way, or is it possible to have the case amended? I'm concerned about gaming of the system here, namely that a user sits tight for a year, and then once the sanction ends, returns to behaviour deemed unacceptable. My concerns are based on the following:

• At Secret Wars, Asgardian engaged in edit warring with another user in September. See [71], [72], [73], [74]. No posts made by Asgardian to the talk page while the edit war was in progress, and Asgardian's last edit is after the other user had raised the issue on the talk page at Talk:Secret Wars#important information. I informed both users of the bold revert discuss guidance, [75] and [76].

• In light of this pointer to WP:BRD, at Abomination (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Rhino (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Asgardian engaged in revert warring with another user: a diff between Asgardian and Dr Bat here. Notice the many differences, mainly consisting of mentions of individual issues, for example, Solo Avengers #12 and Marvel Super-Heroes vol. 3, #6 - 8. Now we can see a diff here, which covers twelve edits to the page over the course of two days, four made by DrBat and five by Asgardian, the other edits from anonymous or uninvolved editors. The diff is from an Asgardian edit to an Asgardian edit. Note, no posts were made by Asgardian to the talk page of either article during this revert war.

• Although I have page banned both users (Wikipedia:AN#User:DrBat_and_User:Asgardian_page_banned_from_Abomination_.28comics.29_and_Rhino_.28comics.29), there appears no intention to resolve the dispute, there is instead a continuation of the dispute as can be seen at User talk:Hiding#Topic Ban, Wikipedia:AN#User:DrBat_and_User:Asgardian_page_banned_from_Abomination_.28comics.29_and_Rhino_.28comics.29, User_talk:Asgardian#Topic_ban_2 and User talk:DrBat#Topic ban

• Ownership issues: Please see this diff. I am concerned at the claim made by Asgardian that the "article is almost complete". It's an assertion Asgardian has made repeatedly in this dispute, see here: "It took hours to complete Abomination, and Rhino was in fact almost finished" and here: "one article as finished and supported by others and the other was one session from being completed". To me these comments completely cut across the idea that Wikipedia is a collaboration and that decisions are made through consensus.

I hope that outlines why I am seeking clarification as to the next step in this dispute, whether it is possible to reactivate a previous arbitration ruling through an amendment or whether a new case is needed? I have notified User:Asgardian of the request here. I have also requested input from WP:COMICS here. Hiding T 11:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the assertion from Asgardian that "The first article - Abomination - was in the main rewritten by myself, and supported by other users", please review Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_38#Stand_up_and_take_notice.21, Talk:Abomination (comics)#Who's in change?, Talk:Red Hulk#Dates while describing the plot, Talk:Abomination (comics)#Who's in change? and Talk:Abomination (comics)#Recent edits. Hiding T 18:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Hiding is trying to say. With regards to Abomination, I have written two version of the article, both of which advocate different styles and are really no more than bold edits. When the first, which included many dates and reflected a preference at the time, was felt to be inappropriate, I wrote the second version that is currently in use. Given I was willing to go back again and rewrite an article in accordance with consensus, I'd say I was being a team player. As for Red Hulk, another editor insisted on another way to write the article, and I complied. Asgardian (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What would you have us do? To clarify, you state that this "appears to be a relatively straightforward situation." Can you explain in what way it is straight forwards, as I don't actually see it as being so. Thank you. Hiding T 18:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• A pointed question: Are there other interpretations to the sentence "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." than those listed in the blocking policy? By which I mean, can the sentence itself be read as a sentence on its own, and blocks made using that sentence? I've always held to a rather tight interpretation regarding blocking. I feel I for one perhaps need guidance in that area. Hiding T 19:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you can close this, as it is not really going anywhere. It looks like we will have to build an RFC. Hiding T 16:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

While I respect Hiding, I believe there is a considerable amount of inference here. For sake of ease, I'll address the points individually.

Secret Wars - the first link [77], simply shows a correction of another user's edits. It doesn't appear to be the user that participates at a later stage. I left comments in the Edit Summaries, and was happy to engage in dialogue with this user, which I currently am with reference to another article [78]. I also posted this on Hiding's page at the time [79] which shows good faith [80]. There was no edit warring, merely an attempt to educate which I am now expanding on with said user.

Abomination/Rhino - I outlined my entire rationale here [81], which also shows that it was in fact the other user who constantly reverted, and made no contributions whatsoever. None. I was even insulted by this user and called a "troll" [82]. Note that I did not retaliate, but instead asked a neutral administrator to intervene, which they did. I also attempted to continue to discuss the issue with the user, and refered the discussion away from Hiding's page as it was not appropriate. I am also not seeing what is inappropriate about the two users in dispute discussing the issue on their respective Talk pages. I have made several attempts, although discussion seems to have stalled as the other user has chosen not to apologize [83] [84] [85].

Hiding is unfortunately also incorrect in the statement that "one article as finished and supported by others and the other was one session from being completed". To me these comments completely cut across the idea that Wikipedia is a collaboration and that decisions are made through consensus." This is assumption and inference, as the tell-tale phrase is to me. The first article - Abomination - was in the main rewritten by myself, and supported by other users [86]. Please note that no one has made any major changes since it was redrafted [87]. This would imply a collaborative consensus. The other - Rhino - was one session away from the final section being redrafted, and in accordance with the wishes of the group [88], which I stated here [89] (the section in question being: I have contributed to dozens of articles and make every effort to improve them. It took hours to complete Abomination, and Rhino was in fact almost finished. A check of the Edit Summary [90] and this line - The Rhino proves to be a perennial favourite in Marvel publications, appearing in over a dozen titles in solo capacity or teamed with dother villains - shows that I was just about to take the advice offered here [91] and create a summary of the signifiant issues, as opposed to a laundry list. Please also note that I wrote both versions, hence improving on my own work is hardly outrageous. The summary would number no more than six points, as opposed to the dozens of listings currently present in the 1990s-2000s section.)

To conclude, I find much of this to be opinion. I have edited dozens of articles, many of which were nothing more than a few lines and an empty SHB and made them fully, fledged articles. In doing so I have seem to have received far more criticism [92] [93] [94] than actual compliments [95]. I've also come a long way, and do not engage in blind reverting and attempt where possible to discuss the issues. I suppose I could also ask why I am the focus here, when my edits are performed in good faith and there is constant edit warring on a number of other articles.

I do have the odd encounter with other editors over substance, but these are almost always over substandard material, and I do my best to accommodate, despite the immaturity and rudeness that is often displayed. I do not feel that Hiding was right to impose a month-long ban on myself for my work on two articles, although I can accept this with good grace. I am happy to continue to try to discuss where possible (although again this is more than most do) and have shown evidence of collaboration. I also do not believe I have done anything that warrants a sanction.

For your consideration

Asgardian (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Asgardian and I were involved in that previous Arbitration, I should probably add my perspective. On the positive side, Asgardian is diligent against fancruft. I'm not sure that's of sufficient weight to balance the continuing difficulties he presents to veteran members of Wiki Project Comics, including myself. The tipping point, for me, is two-fold:

First, the reluctance to accept established, consensus-derived style guidelines. It pains me to say this, since I have collaborated with him successfully on some occasions in 2008, but he will only accept style guidelines for a little while after being told to by an admin, and then he reverts to old habits. I do not believe that a WikiProject Comics editor of three or more years is simply forgetting — to give one of several examples that I could, and the smallest and most picayune &mdash that WPC does not abbreviate "June" or "March" when citing comic-book cover dates. Related to this is his disingenuousness in edit summaries, when something he claims as a small change is actually much more, or a change that is said to go along with consensus actually does the opposite. I have seen a pattern of "laying low" and then returning after a few weeks or month to an article in which consensus went against him, and making the disputed wholesale edits again.

In 2007, this was one thing. In 2009, after much more experience and more time to see behavior repeating itself, it shows a disinclination to accept consensus, and someone whom other editors cannot trust. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, I think there is a degree of inference. First of all, please note that I respect Tenebrae, who excels at editing comic articles on real life persons.

As to the claims, Tenebrae speaks of the "continuing difficulties he presents to veteran members of Wiki Project Comics, including myself." Firstly, Tenebrae has been absent from Wikipedia since the beginning of the year, and returned only recently [96]. Secondly, who are the "veteran" editors? Once again, it is the same small group of editors who offer opinions on matters, and again, there is the danger that such a small group has become set in their views with no new fresh perspective.

Next, Tenebrae mentions dates, and yet it is acceptable to abbreviate months as per the Guidelines [97]. In the interests of "keeping the peace", I adopted the style that Tenebrae requested, and despite this another editor reverted back to my original choice and cited the Guidelines as a reference [98]. This clearly shows duality, and that editors have choices as to how to make improvements to articles. They should not be chastised for choosing one over another if the option is allowed under the umbrella of the Guidelines.

Also, note that I made several overtures to Tenebrae to work with him on the article in question [99] [100] despite the fact that he continually reverted because he disliked the format, and in doing so removed valid, additional information.

Finally, I'm perplexed as to the comment "someone whom other editors cannot trust." What does this mean? All actions by editors are recorded and available for viewing. Where is the relevant section in the Wikipedia Guidelines on "trust"? I was under the impression that editors are asked to acted on good faith [101] as opposed to forming judgements about trust.

All my edits are performed with the intent of improving the articles (which sometimes means removing invalid information which Tenebrae refers to as "fancruft"), and with good faith.

For your consideration.

Asgardian (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the months, as I have noted to Asgardian time and time again in vain, the long months are abbreviated, as was done in the very example Asgardian gives. WikiProject Comics does not abbreviate the short months (as Asgardian does, changing "June" to "Jun.", for example), and neither does the example Asgardian gives. So I'm confused as to what Asgardian's point is.

Second, being away for some months does not change the four years' experience before that. I refreshed myself in WikiProject Comics guidelines and policies, most of which remained unchanged, on my return. To say I "disliked" Asgardian's formatting is a disingenuous and misleading statement on his part. His edits unilaterally blended two discrete and highly different sections together in a manner clearly at odds with standing, long-established consensus. This is part of what I mean by trust issues.

"Veteran editors" means WikiProject Comics editors who have worked on the project for years, a number of whom are admins. Asgardian and I are both certainly Project veterans.

And clearly, I am far from the only veteran WPC editor who feels remarkably frustrated at all the time and effort being expended on a single editor who often refuses to respect guidelines, policies and consensus. -- Tenebrae (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Tenebrae did advise me as to a preferred option on dates [102], but didn't specify that it was only the long months that are abbreviated. Now that I know this, we can amicably move off that topic and go to another part of the Guidelines under discussion [103]. In short, we are in discussion, and this shows good faith. I'm not seeing anything insurmountable. Asgardian (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

In point of fact, I've informed Asgardian about WikiProject Comics MOS on dates time and time again, beginning months or even a year ago. For him to suggest I've only advised him of this recently is frustrating and indicative of his tendency to try and mislead. This editor does not readily listen to other editors, does not adhere to MOS that he knows fully well, and creates difficulties for, and wastes much time of, many editors. This was a serious issue when he was put on a year's probation in December 2007 and the situation has not appreciably approved. Hiding is far from alone in beseeching help. -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest Tenebrae not use this forum to keep examining a minor point that has been resolved. We can discuss this at his Talk Page: [104]. It would be also be appreciated if edtiors could comment without making inflammatory inferences, such as "his tendency to try and mislead". For one thing, it is a breach of civility [105]. The claim that I do not "readily listen to other editors" is also untrue as I have shown collaboration above, and dramatic generalisations such as "Hiding is far from alone in beseeching help. -- " should be avoided. Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Aware of request and awaiting more statements. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Same as FloNight. Awaiting statement from Asgardian and also any WP:COMICS editors who may wish to say something. Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Concur with Vassyana, with the caveat that any administrative action would need to be well-founded and based on looking at the surrounding context and behaviour of all involved (though of necessity not to the same level as an arbitration case does). If an administrator looks at this and feels unable to act, suggest a discussion at an administrators noticeboard, or a user conduct request for comment. My view on requests for re-imposition of expired sanctions or restrictions is that a new case is generally needed (otherwise those sanctioned in cases from some time ago can be unduly targeted later by means of clarification requests), though it is usual for a new case to not take as long, since the hope is that things are clearer given the background provided by the original case. Admins should also be able to judge behaviour in the light of past arbitration cases and sanctions. Carcharoth (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• This appears to be a relatively straightforward situation. Is there a pressing reason that this cannot be handled through standard administrative intervention and/or community discussion? Vassyana (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• In response to Hiding: A user conduct request for comments could potentially help resolve the situation, but if nothing else would provide a clear, centralized view of the problem. Blocks and community-imposed topic bans are two "hard" tools that would be suitable to the situation. Regarding the pointed question, it is important to remember that we are more bound to the principles that our policies represent than the letter of them. If someone is obviously being disruptive, their actions do not magically cease to be disruptive (and therefore subject to sanctions) because the exact behavior is not detailed in policy. If that disruption fits under the general spirit of the blockable offenses listed in the blocking policy, it is blockable behavior. Or, to put it another way that directly responds to your question, that sentence is a fit rationale for blocking. Vassyana (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Initiated by Count Iblis (talk) at 17:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Count Iblis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) notified here

Jayjg has recently behaved in a disruptive way while editing the essay WP:ESCA. He has wikilawyered to get his opponent User:Likebox out of the way there, by misreprenting the facts of Likebox's propbation at AN/I. To get Likebox unblocked, I had to spend time and effort to explain the situation to the reviewing admin [106], and I had to convince Likebox to stick to 1 RR to avoid future trouble [107]. This ultimately had the desired result [108].

Jayjg, while entitled to his opinion about WP:ESCA, is clearly behaving in a very unconstructive and combative way there. Likebox, an expert in theoretical physics, almost left the project. This would have amounted to irreversible damage to Wikipedia. Everyone would be better off if Jayjg were to get back editing his favorite topics to which his type of editing/logic applies much better. I was recently made aware of Jayjg editing restrictions w.r.t. to this Israeli/Palestine related topic, so I was wondering if Jayjg could be allowed to edit his favorite topic again, perhaps with some mentoring agreement or other type of oversight. In return Jayjg should agree to stop getting involved in topics related to science.

Count Iblis (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of why I removed this:

Georgewilliamherbert has let me know that my request is incompatible with how Wikipedia works. So, I've removed this request. I'm not saying that I was out to disrupt Wikipedia or to make a point. But I accept that this problem cannot be addressed in this way, as that is what the people involved in Arbitration have told me.

My reply to Thatcher about his henhouse analogy is that I really intended to send a wolf back to a wolfpack, not a fox to a henhouse. This is really my honest opinion about some of the contentious politics articles. Count Iblis (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Slrubenstein. I've been editing here at Wikipedia quite some time now, so I am used most of the problems we face here. In this case, it was not about my personal editing dispute, rather the fact that Jayjg almost succeeded in getting Likebox removed from Wikipedia that made me think that some sort of action was needed. I'm against banning people unless it is absolutely necessay. The more people can edit in their fields of expertise, the better it is. So, from this perspective, having Jayjg focus more on politics articles and Likebox remaining a Wikipedia editor (and agreeing to stick to 1 RR), is not a bad thing at all. Count Iblis (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In a word, no.

To expand: Jayjg was found, through a full Arbcom case lasting 10 weeks, to have edit warred and behaved inappropriately, for which he was given an indefinite topic ban. Now, since you don't like his editing of an essay on science articles, you propose that he be allowed to edit I-P articles again if he will leave science articles alone (and not even based on a full case with a formal review of everyone's edits but on an informal Request for clarification). In other words, you propose to throw open the doors to your neighbor's henhouse in the hopes that the fox will eat his chickens and leave yours alone. Even if I did not believe there are legitimate concerns about your and Likebox's editing, this would rank high on the list of silliest Arbitration proposals ever. Thatcher 18:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Per the above. The generous reading is that this is a little twisted. The less-generous reading is that it is vindictive. The lack of logic is just charmingly ironic. Thank heavens ArbCom rulings are specific; that is how conflict resolution processes ought to be. Jayjg's ArbCom history has no bearing here.

Count Iblis, you think Jayjg ought not to be editing science related articles. But the issue here really is Jayjg editing a policy related essay, and Jayjg's position was simple; Wikipedia policy should be consistent. This seems reasonable to me, and you do not need a degree in physics to see that.

Count Iblis, as I understand it the real problem for you is that you feel our policies are not working. You say they are not working for science articles, but you know, people run into serious conflicts at articles on religion and literature too, and at least one person in almost every conflict thinks that the existing policies do not, or cannot, or should not, apply to the case at hand. I personally do not accept your argument that science articles need to be edited following different guidelines. Sometimes you just have to suck it up and accept the fact that the article is not going to reflect your own views, we all have to deal with this feeling of frustration. If you really feel the policies are flawed, go to the policy pages and propose improvements to the policies. Make the policies better!

But honestly, what you wrote above, it just sounds like you are taking your frustrations out on Jayjg. It's not seemly. And not fair. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment; appears moot. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Request has been withdrawn by the initiator, and thus is moot. I believe this can be archived. Risker (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Initiated by Deb (talk) at 13:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Deb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Full-date unlinking bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (via note to operator [109])
• Jarry1250 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (BAG member who granted approval [110])

According to the user page for this bot Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, the bot has been approved to begin operating in accordance with the results of the arbitration case listed above.

The section referred to says:

Mass date delinking

1.3) All mass date delinking is restricted for six months. For six months, no mass date delinking should be done until the Arbitration Committee is notified of a Community approved process for the mass delinking.

Passed 10 to 0 at 18:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

[emphasis added]

Regardless of the fact that the Arbitration Committee may have approved the bot, six months has not yet elapsed. Further, it does not appear that the introduction of this bot was made widely known to those who contributed to this discussion.

The word "until" does not alter the fact that a six-month ban was put in place. If the statement had said "unless", it would be a different matter.

I'm not sure how or whether I get a chance to respond to the arbitrator views but I see no explanation of what makes this particular bot so good that it merits overriding the six-month ban that was put in place. Where is the community approval for this bot? All it is doing is blanket unlinking of dates, just like Lightmouse and other outlawed bots were doing previously. How does that "resolve" the matter? Deb (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"...until the Arbitration Committee is notified of a Community approved process for the mass delinking."

This was done; your point about the relevant users not being notified may have merit, however the six month was subject to the above caveat. –xeno^talk 18:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the ArbCom-related side of Deb's statement, but I can reply in short to "Further, it does not appear that the introduction of this bot was made widely known to those who contributed to this discussion", and to say that this is probably because the responsibility did not fall to anyone in particular, and, thus, no-one did it. If by "introduction", you mean "approval", I did submit that to the Signpost tipline, and I did personally inform ArbCom. If you mean "applications process", there were quite a few notifications at VP/M. Other than that, I can't really help, sorry.

The decision 1.3 to which Deb refers does not mean that all date delinking is prohibited for six months, but that it can only be done under the auspices of the ArbCom. This requirement was fulfilled by this amendment. This was the understanding when I discussed this with User:Tony1. @harej 04:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

To supplement Jarry's remarks, the establishment of this bot was subject to RFC (see: Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot), and the exclusion list as codified on User:Full-date unlinking bot#Exceptions was also subject to RFC. @harej 04:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• The discussions about the bot were advertised and subject to a request for comments. ArbCom reviewed the matter and passed a motion recognizing the required community and BAG approved process. The bot operator has been very cooperative with the concerns raised, including making a list of exception in response to the RFC comments. The distinction being made between "until" and "unless" is the worst kind of hair-splitting in my opinion, completely contrary to standard English usage. "Until" and "unless" have more or less the same meaning in context. To make an example: "Johnny is not allowed to leave his post until relieved by the next shift." This statement has the same impact as saying: "Johnny is not allowed to leave his post unless relieved by the next shift." I really do not see what there is to clarify or resolve here. Vassyana (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• In response to Deb, relevant discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll, Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot#RFC, and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot, as noted in the first sentence of the passed motion that I linked. Vassyana (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Concur with Vassyana; as far as I am concerned this has already been resolved. Risker (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment; Agree with both. Approval of a process was a necessary and sufficient condition to override the ban. — Coren ^(talk) 22:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: it was approved by motion. This has been resolved. Cool Hand Luke 18:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• The other arbitrators' comments above seem right to me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with above. Wizardman 00:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)