Revision as of 14:32, 20 September 2009

Requests for amendment

Use this section: To request changes to remedies or enforcement provisions, for example to make them stronger or deal with unforeseen problems. To request lifting of an existing Arbitration sanction that is no longer needed (banned users may email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee directly) How to file a request (please use this format!): Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page. Click here to edit the amendment subpage, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests. Using the format provided by the template, try to show exactly what you want amended and state your reasoning for the change in 1000 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. Although it should be kept short, you may add to your statement in future if needed as the word limit is not rigidly enforced. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~. If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification. This is not a page for discussion. It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts. Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Requests that do not clearly state the following will be removed by Arbitrators or Clerks without comment: The name of the case to be amended (which should be linked in the request header), The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title as presented in the Final Decision, The desired modifications to the aforementioned clause(s), and A rationale for the change(s) of no more than 1000 words. Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee. Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one of those individuals.

Request to amend prior case: ADHD

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 Misplaced Pages'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

Amendment 1

• Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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.

Statement by Hordaland

• The situation on Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and related pages including Misplaced Pages: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. 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 of communicating are 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."

• I am aware that Literaturegeek has filed a request regarding another remedy in the same case. That one and mine may be combined, if that is agreeable to the Committee and other parties.

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) even though their names were not included here. - Hordaland (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

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)

Statement by Unionhawk

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

Statement by Scuro

I should have a response completed for the two amendment changes today. I will inform all if more time is needed.--scuro (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Amendment 2

• Misplaced Pages: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 of up to a week.

Statement by Literaturegeek

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 for various reasons such as we must find consensus first, delaying tactics, implying it is too dramatic for wiki med when an admin asks if it is "safe", ignoring or arguing around direct questions about if he wants to involve wiki projects and so on. See this link Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Medicine/Collaboration_of_the_Week#ADHD, also remember to read the collapsed discussion as well and to click on my "diffs" on that page. The following comment by scuro was made in response to a request about why he seems to be blocking intervention of wiki projects and he responded by evading answering and labeling his oponents as being the same as scientologists and anti-psychiatrists, I sent a level 4 warning to scuro about personal attacks as I took great offense at being labeled as such as I reject the beliefs and agenda of such organisations. I also found his comment offensive because it is scuro not myself or Doc James who is trying to block intervention by "mainstream" pharmacists and doctors from wiki med and wiki pharm projects from their collaboration of the week project. I also admitedly in the midst of this drama wrongly accused hyperion of being a meat puppet. Whilst he admited knowing scuro from ADHD online forum, he said he has not interacted with him off of wikipedia for over 2 years now. I accept his explaination and have apologised. Anyway my point is I find this policy regarding intervention of wiki projects to deal with issues on the article a very important motion passed by arbcom; recommending intervention of outside editors but then when an editor is pushing outside editors away seems to have no remedy or enforcement. It is most unfair that editors keep getting labeled fringe but when we want intervention from other pharmacists and doctors it is strangely not supported by scuro and even appears to being actively blocked. I feel that intervention by outside independent medically and pharmacologically knowledgable people is something that would really help and is a very very important ruling and I feel due to the ongoing problems on ADHD articles, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that an editor is interfering with outside intervention should result in a block. As noted in previous evidence the claims that scuro "drives editors away" is not a new problem or allegation.Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence#Scuro.27s_ownership_but_accusing_oponents_of_ownership Please pass remedies to go along with this finding, preferably to enforce it. Sincerely.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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, besides multiple editors have triedt o engage scuro and either been stonewalled, evaded their question or blamed them etc, so here we are back in arbcoom. Agree on mentor thing as well. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to scuro

I contacted people based on whether they were involved in the ADHD discussion on the wiki Med collaboration project as well as ADHD dispute in general. It wouldn't make any sense to include editors who were not involved in the discussion at wiki med collaboration.Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Medicine/Collaboration_of_the_Week#ADHD--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Unionhawk

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 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 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 03:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply Scuro

The other parties in the initial ArbCom case are largely unaffected by these ammendments.--Unionhawk 02:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• 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)