Active:
Inactive:
Recused:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)