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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 12 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerks' noticeboard. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Neutral point of view[edit]

1) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view; that is, they must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject in accordance with their prevalence. Wikipedia is a mirror for human knowledge: it seeks to reflect, and not distort, the current state of thought on a subject.

Support:
  1. From Prem Rawat 2. This and the following principle relate to the underlying content disputes. --bainer (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 07:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 18:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Vassyana (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Roger Davies talk 14:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutral point of view and sourcing[edit]

2) The requirement of the neutral point of view that points of view be represented fairly and accurately, and Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopaedia, demand that articles should always use the best and most reputable sources. A neutral point of view cannot be synthesised merely by presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarised source.

Support:
  1. From Prem Rawat 2. This and the preceding principle relate to the underlying content disputes. --bainer (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 07:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 18:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Vassyana (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. With my caveats from the earlier case. Carcharoth (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Roger Davies talk 14:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Verifiability and citing sources[edit]

3) All material added to Wikipedia articles must be verifiable, that is, it must be capable of being verified by reference to a reliable source. Editors adding material are not generally required to cite sources, however they should do so when the material is controversial or likely to be challenged, and must do so when the material has actually been challenged or when the material incorporates a direct quotation. Material that is not cited to a reliable source is liable to be challenged and ultimately removed by other editors, if they are unable to verify it.

The citing sources guideline outlines Wikipedia best practice on citing sources.

Support:
  1. I'm not aware of any established wording on verifiability, but this is essentially drawn from or is a summation of the relevant policy pages. --bainer (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 07:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 18:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Vassyana (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Roger Davies talk 14:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Edit-warring considered harmful[edit]

4) Edit-warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:
  1. Standard. --bainer (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 07:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 18:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Vassyana (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Roger Davies talk 14:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Decorum[edit]

5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Standard (though trimming a few items not pertinent to this case from the list). --bainer (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 07:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 18:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Vassyana (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Roger Davies talk 14:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Personalising disputes[edit]

6) In content disputes, editors must always comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends, and should be avoided.

Support:
  1. Proposed. The personalising of the underlying content issues seems to be the reason why this dispute has proceeded so far. The intermixing of content and personal disputes is the reason why prior dispute resolution efforts have had difficulty dealing with the situation, due to the problem of having to extract one problem or the other. --bainer (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yeah, one of the reasons civility matters. Cool Hand Luke 07:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 18:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The first sentence has an inherent exception for necessary commenting on contributors in the course of dispute-resolution, which might be made explicit as I have done in other cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Something like "In content disputes, ..." could be added to the beginning to clarify the scope. --bainer (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Vassyana (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I've added "In content disputes, " as suggested above.[1] --John Vandenberg (chat) 00:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This is at the root of many disputes. Comment on the content not the contributor is all too often ignored. Carcharoth (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Roger Davies talk 14:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Role of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

7) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Support:
  1. Standard. --bainer (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 07:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 18:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Vassyana (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. At least not directly. Indirectly, resolving conduct issues may end up affecting content. The hope is that other editors will arrive and help iron out lingering concerns about content. Carcharoth (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Roger Davies talk 14:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

8) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) The locus of this dispute is the attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder article and associated articles on the topic of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. In particular, this dispute encapsulates various editorial disagreements, primarily relating to the due weight to be accorded to various points of view on controversies relating to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, which have become somewhat personalised.

Support:
  1. There were comments on the workshop to the effect that the locus should extend to talk page conduct, but that doesn't strike me as the problem here. From reading the various talk pages, it's evident that all the major contributors are knowledgeable about the subject matter and the discussions relate to real content issues to do with the various pages. The far more obvious problem is the habitual reverting that crops up every now and then, and the personalisation of the dispute so that the parties aren't discussing issues effectively. --bainer (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 21:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 17:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. There are talk page issues, but that varies in intensity over time. Depersonalisation and focus on productive discussion of the content and sources is the solution here, not shutting off knowledgeable contributors. Carcharoth (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Roger Davies talk 14:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose:
Abstain:

Scuro[edit]

Edit-warring[edit]

2A) Scuro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edit-warred on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and associated articles:

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 21:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 17:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Roger Davies talk 14:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Incivility and personalising content disputes[edit]

2B) Scuro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has occasionally been incivil and has personalised editorial disputes: [23], [24], [25], [26]

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 21:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 17:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Roger Davies talk 14:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Jmh649[edit]

Edit-warring[edit]

3A) Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also known as "Doc James", has edit-warred on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and associated articles:

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 21:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Edit warring like this should not occur outside of BLP. Cool Hand Luke 17:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Carcharoth (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 14:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Some, although certainly not all, of the reverts here were in line with policy, e.g., removing unsourced controversial text. I am reluctant to draw too strong a parallel between this user's editing and Scuro's. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors should avoid edit-warring even if their changes are or are perceived to be justified, save for certain exceptions such as applying the biographies of living persons policy (and even then, approaches such as seeking to have a disruptive user blocked is preferable to edit-warring). --bainer (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility and personalising editorial disputes[edit]

3B) Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also known as "Doc James", has occasionally been incivil and has personalised editorial disputes: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 21:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 17:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This is a concerning level of incivility. Carcharoth (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 14:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The last of the cited diffs is six months old. Unless more evidence is provided, I think this is too stale to warrant a finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree if there were remedies proposed based on this proposed finding, but this (as with the equivalent proposal relating to Scuro) is included as explanation for the observation made elsewhere in the decision that we have here a content dispute that has become personalised, and that factor has hindered dispute resolution. --bainer (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Literaturegeek[edit]

4) Literaturegeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edit-warred on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and associated articles:

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 21:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 17:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. And too much talking in edit summaries. Discussion should take place on talk pages, not through edit summaries. If discussion has broken down on talk pages, then seek dispute resolution, rather than engaging in edit warring. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 14:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I see exasperated reactions that could have been handled better, but am not convinced this rises to the level warranting an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Topic area[edit]

1) For the purpose of these remedies, the topic area is defined as the attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder article, associated articles on the topic of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and portions of other articles that are primarily or substantially about attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 21:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. However, I would note to the parties that similar behaviour on other medical articles (even if not related to ADHD) could easily be brought within scope if such behaviour did move to other articles. Carcharoth (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 14:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cool Hand Luke 18:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Scuro restricted[edit]

2) Scuro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Scuro is limited to one revert per page per week within the topic area (except for undisputable vandalism and biographies of living persons violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Scuro exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, Scuro may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 21:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Carcharoth (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 14:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cool Hand Luke 18:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Scuro placed under mentorship[edit]

3) 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.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Providing guidance and advice is the purpose of mentorship. --Vassyana (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I share Wizardman's concern, but I am willing to try it as an alternative to a topic-ban. If Scuro were to propose another means by which his editing behavior could be improved, I'd be willing to listen. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. per Newyorkbrad. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Carcharoth (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 14:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cool Hand Luke 18:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Not sure about the effectiveness of this. Wizardman 21:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jmh649 restricted[edit]

4) Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Jmh649 is limited to one revert per page per week within the topic area (except for undisputable vandalism and biographies of living persons violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Jmh649 exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, Jmh649 may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 21:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Carcharoth (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 14:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I'm not convinced this is necessary, although hopefully it's a moot point, since the need for reversions should decrease based on the remedies involving Scuro. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Probably not needed. Cool Hand Luke 18:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Literaturegeek advised[edit]

5) Literaturegeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is advised to refrain from edit-warring.

Support:
  1. Changed this to "advised" from "warned" at the workshop as Literaturegeek seems to have acknowledged their conduct and the need to refrain from edit-warring in various comments there. --bainer (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 21:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The appropriate verb is really "reminded" in this context. I'm not sure this is really necessary, but I can accept it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Advised work, too, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. See also my advice in the finding of fact for this. Carcharoth (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 14:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cool Hand Luke 18:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editors reminded[edit]

6) All editors editing within the topic area are reminded to remain civil in their interactions with other editors, and avoid personalising content disputes.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the wording to "reminded" as Newyorkbrad suggests below. I think that it works better. Revert me if you disagree. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 21:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vassyana (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Would be good to alert people to this with a talk page banner. Carcharoth (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 14:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per change in wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cool Hand Luke 18:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
As a matter of semantics, I can't vote to "warn" editors most of whom have done nothing wrong. If the verb were changed to "reminded" or "advised" I would support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Changed to support per changed wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors encouraged[edit]

7) 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.

Support:
  1. The need for third-party input is strongly felt here; moreover since this dispute is fundamentally about content, with personal issues intermixed, resolution of both aspects is necessary, and the Committee cannot deliver that. --bainer (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 22:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. There are also content noticeboards that may be helpful. WP:NPOVN is a good place to sort out due weight. WP:NORN is a good place to address concerns about original research. And so on. --Vassyana (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I'd support adding Vassyana's suggestions to the remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. All the advice is good, and recommend a six-month review by ArbCom to see if the advice has been followed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 14:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cool Hand Luke 18:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Support:
  1. Standard. --bainer (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 22:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Carcharoth (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cool Hand Luke 18:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Administrator and community discretion should not be fettered in this fashion (by block limits). --Vassyana (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

  • Straightforward implementation; all proposals pass. Note that the result on each item is the same whether or not Kirill's and Rlevse's votes are counted (since the case was substantially complete before they resigned) or considered withdrawn in light of their resignations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast,
depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support
  1. Move to close pending implementation notes, which I will request now. Carcharoth (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. To save time, I've posted the implementation note myself; it's as straightforward as it gets, in that everything passes. Arbitrators who voted early should probably re-visit the workshop page and the proposed decision talkpage before voting to close, as there are recent additions from several parties. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. --bainer (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 16:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 18:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Proposed_decision&oldid=431098890"