Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Historical elections	13 Sep 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	(orig. case)	26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	8 September 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion to amend Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking|Motion to amend Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking]]	12 October 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motions to amend Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD|Motions to amend Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD]]	20 October 2009

Motions

Motion to amend Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority. Majority reference Abstentions Support votes needed for majority 0–1 5 2–3 4 4–5 3
Active Arbitrators: Coren FloNight John Vandenberg Newyorkbrad Risker Rlevse Stephen Bain Vassyana Wizardman	Inactive Arbitrators: Cool Hand Luke FayssalF Roger Davies Recused Arbitrators: Carcharoth

Motion

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll, Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot#RFC, and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot indicate that Full-date unlinking bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) fulfills the requirement for "a Community approved process for the mass delinking" in "1.3 Mass date linking" and the requirement for "[d]ate delinking bots [performing] in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group" in "2.1 Date delinking bots". The Committee thanks the participants for their efforts and encourages them to continue with their constructive work and consensus building.

Support

1. Proposed. This matter seems resolved and it is best not to leave the case hanging as an unknown for the bot operator. Could a clerk please notify the bot operator, BAG, and the main parties from the date delinking case of this proposal? Vassyana (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2. So it does. Thank you for all the efforts deployed by everyone to clarify this matter. — Coren ^(talk) 14:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 18:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Risker (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
5. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I am not convinced of the solidarity of the consensus on this as there is still a lot of disagreement on dates in the community. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

Recuse

1. Carrying over my recusal from the case itself. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment. Awaiting statements. FloNightξξξ 11:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Notifications of this motion made to: Bot Approvals Group, User talk:Full-date unlinking bot, User talk:Harej and to all named parties in the Date delinking case. Manning (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Dabomb87

Response to Rlevse

Rlevse, could you explain where there has been controversy over dates since the last community-wide discussion on them? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, the guideline is still semi protected and for me to consider it stable I'd expect to see it unprotected, stable, and quiet in that arena of wiki for awhile. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's more the product of negligence than instability, but good point, and I will lobby for the section to be unprotected. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Motions to amend Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD

Note: These motions arose from the tail-end/aftermath of this request for amendment.

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority. Majority reference Abstentions Support votes needed for majority 0–1 5 2–3 4 4–5 3
Active Arbitrators: Carcharoth Coren FloNight John Vandenberg Newyorkbrad Rlevse Stephen Bain Vassyana Wizardman	Inactive Arbitrators: Cool Hand Luke FayssalF Risker Roger Davies Recused Arbitrators:

Literaturegeek topic banned

Literaturegeek (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all pages, topics, and discussions related to attention-deficit hyperactivity, broadly defined, for twelve months.

Support

1. Sadly, it seems this is necessary to give other editors breathing room. I also expect both editors to take this as a final warning about personalizing disputes and related conduct issues. Vassyana (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
2. The length of the ban I could see changing, but a definite break is needed here for both of the principal editors (the warning signs for Literaturegeek were in the previous requests for clarification/amendment and in the case itself). The clerks have been asked to notify those who need to be notified. Unlike at the request for amendment, I am going to ask the clerks to keep a tight rein on this one. Statements will need to be strictly limited in length and focused on the proposal. No more walls of text. Carcharoth (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 20:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
5. — Coren ^(talk) 22:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

Discussion

• I would request that a clerk hold off an additional twenty-four hours before closing over the initial period to allow time for a bit more discussion to take place. Thank you. Vassyana (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Scuro topic banned

Scuro (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all pages, topics, and discussions related to attention-deficit hyperactivity, broadly defined, for twelve months.

Support

1. Sadly, it seems this is necessary to give other editors breathing room. I also expect both editors to take this as a final warning about personalizing disputes and related conduct issues. Vassyana (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
2. The length of the ban I could see changing, but a definite break is needed here for both of the principal editors. The clerks have been asked to notify those who need to be notified. Unlike at the request for amendment, I am going to ask the clerks to keep a tight rein on this one. Statements will need to be strictly limited in length and focused on the proposal. No more walls of text. Carcharoth (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 20:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
5. — Coren ^(talk) 22:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

Discussion by Arbitrators

• Adding a more lengthy comment here to explain to the parties why I've supported these motions. The original case said this: "All editors editing within the topic area are reminded to remain civil in their interactions with other editors, and avoid personalising content disputes. Passed 11 to 0, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)" Then at a clarification request less than two weeks later I said the following: "I would urge scuro and literaturegeek and other parties to the case to work together, rather than trying to test or explore the boundaries of the case decision. I note that one arbitration enforcement request has already been filed. If that is needed, sure, but please try and focus on the article content and its sources, and not each other's behaviour. This was made clear in the case, and should be made clear each time further requests are filed. If large numbers of frivolous requests are filed, indicating that editors are looking at each other's behaviour, rather than working on article content, new restrictions may need to be imposed. Carcharoth (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)" Some time elapsed before the mentorship issue came up, and it was initially thought that this had potential. However, reviewing User:Scuro/Mentorship and User talk:Scuro/Mentorship, and some of the recent discussions pointed out by Literaturegeek in various places, while there is some potential there, all too often things would get bogged down again with personalised comments about the other editors, rather than focusing on article content. That, ultimately, and the failure to either work together or disengage, is why a topic ban is the option I am supporting here for both editors. If other editors on that article argue with each other and don't work on it productively, then more topic bans might be needed, and even an article probation. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Parties notified. MBisanz ^talk 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• As it is currently passing, the Motion will probably be archived sometime around 22:44, 22 October 2009. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

List of parties notified

• Literaturegeek (talk · contribs)
• Scuro (talk · contribs)

Statements by parties (500 words or fewer)

I'd like everyone to take a real close look at all the uncivil behaviour on User talk:Scuro/Mentorship. It is on this page that I lost my mentor, it is because of this page that there is a motion of a topic ban. Look who "swamped" that page and made mentoring impossible. Look who refused to make any compromise in effort to get the mentor back. This was a beneficial relationship. Somehow all that gets turned around on me, and I am to be punished because this avenue turned negative. Also take a look at Literaturegeek's and my one to one communication on Literaturegeek's talk page.[1] We found common ground on several issues and the discussion is moving forward. I have tried very hard here. I have made a significant concession, and I have changed considerably in a year. I have shut no doors.

Now look at the reasons for a ban of editing the topic pages, I haven't edited any of ADHD pages in a month. Where is the evidence presented of my misconduct since arbitration, and justification why this evidence is of such a severe nature that the behaviour warrants a forced 12 month topic ban? What one calls "digging claws into each other", another would call giving ongoing evidence of current uncivilness and abuse. I have made every effort to make administrators aware of this but it has all been ignored. It would be an impressive list if I chronicled every transgression over the last 3 months. The accusations have been extraordinary, and amazingly they continue here at AR. I understand that arb com wants peace and "closure" on these pages, but I ask arb com to consider the facts and evidence, and not the narrative so oft presented. Do not punish contributors who point out continuous and current uncivil behaviour. The cost of community peace should not come at the hands of the unfair treatment of individual contributors.--scuro (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A response to Carcharoth

How can I "focus on article content" when I have been under a voluntary topic ban for a month, because of your request during AR?--scuro (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Literaturegeek response

Background

I feel that it is unfair that arbitrators have voted based on no evidence and not waiting for evidence to be presented. What is the evidence for this topic ban? Can some diffs be provided? I made an extensive effort on my talk page to resolve conflicts with scuro.User_talk:Literaturegeek#compromise

Scuro himself said, I am getting somewhere with LG. A meeting of the minds could solve this.

and For instance I have to say that I am impressed with LIteraturegeek's willingness to continue talking and seeking solutions. This is a positive event and I really hope she continues.

and this post, I do want to tell you that I did truly feel that you were sympathetic and wanted to find common ground me. That was appreciated, thank you! :-) If you want to continue with this after the topic ban I'd be willing to do that. :-)

Hordaland also stated this, Meanwhile, L is showing patience worthy of sainthood -- just hope s/he can keep it up....

You both have personalized the dispute and continue to dig your claws into each other. I noted very clearly from my intial comment that I was looking towards topic bans, and why. I was allowing both the mentorship and the temporary impovement to prove me wrong, and indeed, I was quite pleased to be proven wrong. I am equally displeased that my good faith was misplaced and things just started going back to the same old patterns. This is admittedly a blunt tool, but the subtler tools for resolving this dispute seem to be fruitless. Vassyana (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please show me recent evidence/diffs in context outside of arbcom where I personalised things or dug claws in. Nothing could be further from the truth. When I criticise scuro in arbcom that is because this is like an online court where allegations and criticisms are made.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

One question

I would like arbcom staff who are voting, to reply with either yes or no as to whether they have read my talk page interactions with scuro?User_talk:Literaturegeek#compromise If not then what is the topic ban based on?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Question for Carcharoth

I did personalise things in one post on the talk page of the mentorship and I apologise but I don't think that one post is justification enough for a topic ban. Have you read all of this User_talk:Literaturegeek#compromise? If you have not then I feel that you are not looking at the evidence in context.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

An offer

I had since the last ammendment request made a decision to self impose a topic ban or at least severely restrict my editing on the ADHD articles. I have not edited any of the ADHD articles since the ammendment request so I think this is another reason why the topic ban is unjustified. Even though I feel that an injustice is being done, I am willing for the good of the community self impose a voluntary topic ban, which when the voluntary topic ban expires I will then self impose an indefinate editing limiting restriction where I only contribute to the articles OR the article talk pages say one edit per week or one day per week. I am willing to accept recommendations from the arbcom of the nature of a voluntary topic ban. If a violation occurs then arbcom could then make it an enforced topic ban. I at present protest the enforced topic ban as no evidence convincing evidence has been presented to justify it. That's all folks. The END. Signed a depressed and annoyed,,,,--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Xavexgoem

I was walking a very fine line between Scuro and those opposite of him. It became far far too fine a line to walk. Therefore, I agree with the motions presented here, and likely would have had it been presented when I was still in my capacity.

Lastly: I believe that the action of editors in this dispute are not exclusively designed to provoke, and this was what I was trying to prove to Scuro. That they themselves do not see this in themselves and (particularly) others is imho the central problem here. I believe this despite all other allegations to the contrary; indeed, they reinforce my belief. Take heed. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Of all of the editors I was the one who was reaching out to scuro on my talk page making an earnest effort to resolve things. I still see no justification why I should be singled out for a topic ban.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The mentorship lasted nine days, it was supposed to last a year. As I've said before it had already proved to be beneficial. Who knows what could have been accomplished in that year.--scuro (talk) 10:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Durova

Dopping by after a very long hiatus since initiating RFAR to express full support, in a general sense, for Xavexgoem's judgment. When the Committee heard this case it was already well aware of my opinion regarding mentorship: that it is seldom successful unless it is completely voluntary and not every situation is suitable for it. The Committee had already chosen in several instances to disregard that input, so there was nothing more to do but wait in the hope that events would prove my opinion to have been overly pessimistic. Now is a good occasion to repeat the related concern that Wikipedia has a limited pool of volunteers who have the talent and temperament to mentor well. It is my hope that the Committee will rethink its course before that pool is depleted; there are settings where mentorship can be beneficial, but pursuit of it as a panacea risks diminishing returns. Durova³³² 02:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree mentorship was in this case sadly was a bad idea.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, one individual who did not proactively seek mentorship, juxtaposed with hostile editors who were more interested in playing to the crowd than in fostering improvement, pretty much doomed the effort from the beginning. Durova³³² 04:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yea but your view I believe was formed on admin noticeboard initial drama, when the ADHD editors all piled onto there at once. You need I feel to be in the editing environment to understand what is really going on. You are entitled to your views, just saying that I respectfully disagree.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Your belief of where my opinion was formed is not necessarily an accurate reflection of where or how it was actually formed. ;) Anyway, here's hoping this stubborn dispute sees some kind of definitive closure. Durova³³² 04:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well at least there is something that we can both agree to! Closure is what is needed. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"one individual who did not proactively seek mentorship", Durova, I hope that comment wasn't directed at me because it would be a gross mischarterization of what actually happened. I went above and beyond the call of duty to help put that in place.--scuro (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Mentorships that have good outcomes are usually established without the Arbitration Committee's direct involvement. In the Israeli-Palestinian disputes, for example, Jaakobou had sought me out for advice for nearly half a year before a request for arbitration named him. By the time RFAR was filed it was merely a matter of formalizing the mentorship and announcing it: mentorship was already happening and he clearly had been prioritizing self-improvement over wikipolitics. He wanted feedback rather than an ally. That's proactive action on the part of an editor. Durova³³² 15:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Good outcomes were happening. We got thrown together but found a grove quickly. The conversation had turned to true seeking of help, and excellent help given. I was getting ready to hear his philosophy of wikipedia. There is no reason that this mentorship couldn't have turned into a very positive result, and I was very disappointed when it ended. Again, why I am being punished for earnestly complying with this remedy?--scuro (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It's unknowable how things might have worked out in a less politicized environment. One of the downsides of relying on mentorship as an arbitration remedy is that observers usually interpret it as an alternative to more stringent measures. That applies across the board--not just to this dispute. Two or three years ago the way things worked was that editors came to arbitration and some of them mentioned along the way "I've sought and obtained mentorship". The Committee treated that as one positive sign--the editor recognized shortcomings and was willing to work on improving them--and it was up to the editor to demonstrate actual improvement. That focus on the bottom line kept the mentors themselves in the background and free to concentrate on the real priority of actually mentoring. Now look at these two quotes:

(Posted by Scuro in response to the mentor's request to define success in mentorship): Right now what is crossing my mind is that I believe that the amendment request should not be shutdown before some serious issues have been addressed by arb com for the first time. No one should be able to continuously make false accusations and speak ill of you in wikipedia.[2]

(Posted by Literaturegeek in response to the mentor's request for a change of venue): He didn't seem to call scuro on anything. Scuro was bad mouthing, character assassinating editors but when for example yourself tried to defend yourself your actions were labeled nasty. This may have been ok if the mentor was also labeling scuro's distortions and character assassinations as nasty but it seemed the opposite was true.[3]

This is the sort of situation mentors dread because the politics are so close to the surface that the mentor himself becomes a political football. Although not every post carried that tone, the fact that this happened at all (and on both sides) basically meant that Xavexgoem had little chance of success--and if any success did occur it would come at the unacceptably high price of much mud being thrown on his reputation. He was wise to bow out quickly. Durova³³² 16:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to what you stated, the mentor did not make any request of me to define success in the mentorship. In fact Xavexgoem defined it himself this way, "Success (that is, release from mentorship) will be defined by my (Xav's) Holy Decree. Neither Xav nor Scuro will take this too too seriously, and the mentor (Xav) defines what is "too serious" and "too silly", but he is of course open to suggestion". He stated that the mentorship would focus on, "sources and citations, other things that cross our minds". [4] I took Xavexgoem up on his offer. What was on my mind was that abuse issues had gone unchecked for about 6 months and that I had made a request to arb com that I be allowed to add an amendment looking into these issues. Arb com had initially agreed but then wouldn't reply when I repeatedly asked for confirmation. Now look at my whole quote and tell me that this post is about, "tone", or "personalization". It is about an editor begging someone to do something. "...Right now what is crossing my mind is that I believe that the amendment request should not be shutdown before some serious issues have been addressed by arb com for the first time. No one should be able to continuously make false accusations and speak ill of you in wikipedia. I think that holds especially true during sanction processes when people's emotions are already heightened. This happened during the amendment request, it has happened at every sanction event starting with the topic ban. I believe there would be over a hundred examples...possibly hundreds of examples. I strongly believe that it should be addressed now because we are here, it has never been addressed formally, and this has gone on for far too long. I want a solution, and I'm willing to make any pledge, such as strictly focus on content and never the contributor. That is an easy solution if the others would follow".[5] Why I am I to be punished for making a complaint about longstanding abuse? This is a cruel way to deal with a problem.--scuro (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Hordaland

Undue weight? I think so. It looks to me as though ArbCom feels a need to balance things by applying exactly the same remedy to both. Literaturegeek does at times hit "save" much too quickly, but I hardly think s/he needs a whole year to calm down. - Hordaland (talk) 07:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration remedies are admittedly blunt tools with long durations. A three month sanction would be "short". One year is the general standard default length and also typically the maximum (though ArbCom has shown an increasing willingness to leave periods indefinite). The equal weight of the sanctions is based on the observation that they have both personalized this dispute. Others I would expect to take a more nuanced view share this opinion, which helped convince me that this course was necessary. It may be of additional interest to you that Literaturegeek approached me on my talk page to discuss the possibility of alternate sanctions. I'm quite open to the discussion. There is the possibility that something could be worked out that LG is willing to accept and that the length of the sanction could be reduced after demonstrating good work and an appeal. Vassyana (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Jmh649

LG is a good editor. He writes well referenced material on a variety of topics. He has contributed significantly to Wikipedia. We have not always agreed when we have crossed paths and have had some harsh words at times but LG always supported his text to verifiable sources. And this is the foundation of Wikipedia. In deciding this case I think the edit histories of these two editors need to be taken into account.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)