Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Proposed decision

Active:

1. Carcharoth
2. Cool Hand Luke
3. FloNight
4. Jayvdb
5. Kirill Lokshin
6. Newyorkbrad
7. Rlevse
8. Roger Davies
9. Stephen Bain
10. Vassyana
11. Wizardman
12. FayssalF

Inactive:

1. Coren

Recused:

1. Casliber
2. Risker

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

I am still surprised at how this arbcom is going. Doc James is almost getting "punished" as badly as scuro. Essentially the entire editing community complained about scuro but not Doc James and only scuro complained about Doc James, but it seems the community is being seen as wrong and Doc James is being judged as badly as scuro. I guess this is either because you want to punish the mildly guilty as severely as the very guilty to appear neutral, perhaps? Or else because when viewing the diffs you are not aware of the history behind those reverts. For example the ancient history 2008 "edit warring" by Doc James appears to be due to scuro going against what he agreed in the wiki mediation cabal and edit warring. In this instance Doc James appeared to have went through the proper channels of very prolonged mediation and dispute resolution but scuro's words were hollow and he just went back to his old behaviour. In this instance I feel Doc James reverts were justified. Then incivility from over 6 months ago when Doc James was a nrew editor is brought up, even though he never "reoffended". I would like to discuss with arbcom why you are going against the views of the community and I would like to close by saying that I mean no disrespect in this posting of mine and acknowledge and appreciate your good work in keeping wikipedia ticking over.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, bad delivery. In this case Bainer (whom I would concider a 'hangin judge') has explicitly stated that he conciders any edit warring inexcusable save for BLP's and vandalism. You would get better results by framing your objection in a manner that puts Doc James participation in the mediation cabal as a central issue. You need to prove that Doc James reverts were in the interest of maintaining the status quo during a good faith discussion of the issue as opposed to Scuro, whom you have to prove was reverting to advance his position in the dispute. This, of course, would need diffs. If you can achieve this, then Doc James reverts were part and parcel with the mediation process of the issue and hence, not edit-warring. Simply saying Doc James reverts were 'justified' frames your objection in a manner that says 'He's allowed to revert if he's right'. I acknowledge that was not what you were trying to say, I'm just saying your chosen words are easily translated as such. Edit warring is never 'justified'. Maintianing article stability while mediating a dispute is.198.161.174.222 (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LG - the Proposed Decision actually makes quite a significant distinction between Doc James and Scuro - Scuro is placed under mentorship. While this might not satisfy a desire for retribution, or pay back the editors who have lost time/effort and suffered angst due to Scuro's editing style, as a proactive remedy it has important implications. A tendentious style on Scuro's part will be difficult to maintain under mentorship, and instead the hope would seem to be that a style can evolve which will harness Scuro's clear passion in a more constructive way. This is not done by simply "advising" Scuro - a mentor (in some ways a stand-in for the community) will be taking on the burden of both helping and watching Scuro to see if a positive outcome can be achieved. Doc James, who on reading of the case seems like a Good Guy, is in some ways also a stand-in for the community - shouldering the symbolic burden of not showing the bhudda-like behavior which is the Wikipedia ideal via his proposed restriction. This is hard on Doc, arguably unreasonable on the part of Arbcom (after all, such behavior is an ideal, not reality for non-bhodissatavas like you, me, and DJ) - but if Doc James is the Good Guy that he appears to be based on his conduct in this case, he will probably see this as an opportunity to model "best-of-Wikipedia" behavior and just keep contributing. As NYB notes, the restriction will, it is to be hoped, not so oppressive is Scuro and his mentor can achieve a positive result. 74.66.17.162 (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have restored my confidence in this arbcom and have hope again that the disruption will be dealt with. Thank you for enlightening me as to the role and effect of the mediator. I am willing to give another chance to scuro. I only met scuro for 2 or 3 weeks, so have no hard feelings against him but involved myself in this arbcom as I could see this was a long running issue (years) involving multiple editors which needed resolving.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sections against me are not a huge issue. I will continue using good sources and edit Wikipedia as always. The accusations of page ownership without any evidence provided does get triering, however. It would be good if Scuro is required to deal with sources rather than make false personal accustions. Hopefully mentorship will acheive this. Cheers--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you are willing to accept the outcome of the arbcom. I am feeling more optomistic now that some good will come from the arbcom. I think that scuro will find it difficult now with a mentor to keep making these accusations of ownership and get away with other disruption on the content page.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that this arbcom is not going to achieve what is needed. Scuro is continuing to accept no wrong doing. So judging by this, his behaviour will largely continue. He will continue to fill the talk page bombarding editors with original research opinions, uncivil accusations and so forth whilst providing no citations. Consensus cannot be reached with original research. He has basically been given permission to continue to abuse tags based on original research and abuse talk pages and editors "provided he remains civil in doing so". Usually tags are used because one editor has one source which says X and another has a source that says Y, a discussion occurs on talk page, a compromise is reached, tag is then removed. This is not the case here, but tags are abused combatively based on original research or usually without even stating a reason for the tag when editors have repeatedly said you are more than welcome to use reliable sources and contribute your viewpoint. Some good will come out of this arbcom don't get me wrong, scuro will not be able to go deleting good quality refs and edit warring over it etc but that is only perhaps 25% of the problem. I just feel that it is likely if editors get bogged down dealing with disruptive behaviour and tactics on talk page, spending 2 or more hours per day on talk page dealing with unproductive nonsense and incivil false accusations of page ownership and this repeated tagging of articles then tensions will escalate and we will be back on the admin noticeboard and arbcom in a matter of weeks.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I recall an ArbCom principle on tags stating they should not be used to further a content dispute. Perhaps this should be included in this decision. –xeno^talk 13:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LG has achieved the most succinct statement of the problem to date:

"... editors get bogged down dealing with disruptive behaviour and tactics on talk page[s], spending 2 or more hours per day on talk page[s] dealing with unproductive nonsense and [incivil] false accusations of page ownership..."

That's it, in a nutshell. - Hordaland (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Horda, some anon ip editor has shared his views on the arbcom and it appears this arbcom may have a proposal already which will deal with this issue more effectively than we though? Or perhaps I am too optomistic? :-) See above section.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why a mentor has not been appointed for scuro? Is there a reason? Drama with scuro and other editors has escalated again. I am now dragged into a dispute with multiple editors, many of whom do not understand the background of ths situation unfortunately. The same thing is happening, belittling editors, labeling them as fringe, minority editors, scientologists and jumping from user talk page to user talk page making these allegations, forcing the accused to engage in the drama and defend oneself infront of admins who do not understand the situation to stop them buying into the false accusations that scuro is trying to make them believe. Why has a mentor not been appointed? If mentorship is not an option then perhaps we need to reopen the arbcom to find a different remedy? Is this an option? This is extremely stressful and it is very difficult to remain cool. How can the arbcom resolve this? This does not involve just me but attack was also on Doc James but he is too busy to get too involved.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes would agree with this synopsis.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the situation is not good, and have been wondering if Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement should be the next step (after collecting diffs). Specifically:

1. Mentor. If one has been appointed, should that be made public? If not, why not? It should have been done 14-15 August, one month after the case closed.
2. Scuro has continued to actively work against this ArbCom decision:

• 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.

- Hordaland (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not completely sure if arbcom enforce blocks based on personal attacks? I am thinking that we should file a request to reopen arbcom or for clarification. There are several issues, ongoing disruption, personal attacks, soap boxing as well as meat puppery which Doc James and I can demonstrate. Scuro is back to spreading the dispute all overr admins talk pages and spewing out lie after lie and I am sick of having to address one lie after another and at the same time remaining civil. It should be a short arbcom, that is even if they accept reopening it. What else can we do?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is doubt that there is a problem, request for amendment may be more useful with respect to the current remedies than a mere request for clarification. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Some background reading is at my talk page here: User talk:Xeno#ADHD (perm). I would really appreciate if someone could step in because I do not have the time to untangle this. –xeno^talk 15:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvolcalist, thanks for your feedback. I have a remaining issue that perhaps you can help me with. If I or another editor want to submit a request for ammendment, how do we do it? The only two options on the arbcom requests page is submit a "new arbcom request" or "ask for clarification". There is no option for requesting an ammendment that I can see.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for amendment. –xeno^talk 20:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]