Abd has made a number of suggestions which sounds very reasonable. WhatamIdoing has offered help with mediation. I have agreed to be civil and follow wiki protocals. I think we should now be able to move on to the discussion of content. WhatamIdoing has phrased the main issue I have had during my time editing here. We need to agree on "Is ADHD controversial" So I think this would be a good next step.
Glad to hear that your ready to move forward, even better that you have agreed to be civil and follow wiki protocols. That is a huge step forward and it is much appreciated. There are still a few stumbling blocks. I don't read Abd's posts. At this point it would probably be good to flesh out the process of mediation, simply expand upon your suggestions and paraphrase any suggestionss of Abd's that you think will be helpful. I have no problems with what you have suggested so far, although I would like an administrator mediating. May I suggest Xavexgoem? I trust that he has both of our best interests at heart and also has the experience of handling many negotiations. Hopefully he is still willing to help. I assume that Vaoverland and Vannin will want to focus on the process of editing and consensus building. That would be an area of interest for myself also. Looking forward to hearing from you. Sincerely --scuro (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer someone with experience with medical articles. The research terms can get a little bit complicated and having someone who understands them would be helpful in moving things forwards.
As I mentioned elsewhere I am a scientist and physician though and through. I spend my life looking at research and have spent some time doing it in the past. I try to practice evidence based medicine. If you find better sources that contradict what I have added I am happy to make changes.
No one here is denying the existence of psychiatric illnesses. I see them ever day and I see the problems they can cause. Anxiety causing chest pain. Behavior disorder causing violence and drug addiction. I also see the problems there treatments can cause. Stimulants and mania. Anti psychotics and weight gain. Anti anxiolytics and falls in the elderly. The world is never black and white. We need to present information so that people can make informed choices. No one denies that stimulants are effective at improving concentration and behavior. Published studies also show rate of side effect of 22%. There is not much long term data but it is coming.
Biopsychiatry is a new field. Conclusions are not yet definitive and therefore subject to interpretation and controversy. We all draw the normal line at differnt point when it comes to behavior. This is why we see such different rates of ADHD diagnosis between the UK and the US. A significant improvement for one person may not be considered significant for another. ect. Doc James (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up some excellent issues but lets slow down and flush this out a bit. A strong experienced hand will be needed to guide. Things are going well now but there probably will be points of strong disagreement. The issues are not just medical related.
I don't mind if Una or WhatamIdoing become part of the process but I want an administrator leading. How do you envision the process taking shape? I think we should work on that next and make sure that Vannin and Vaoverland are on the same page.--scuro (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scuro and Doc James, you two are making good headway. That makes me feel good about the (small) effort I have contributed. Thank you! One issue I see you both talking around now is this: do you want a mediator, or an umpire? Mediators and umpires have different powers (although not everyone is aware of the differences.) An admin to lead sounds like an umpire, someone empowered to make decisions. A mediator is empowered to pull you up short if your behavior goes out of bounds, but not empowered to say who has the better argument, nor to break a tie. Consider this: if you both agree to mediation and choose someone to play the role of mediator (not umpire), that someone should be able to go to an administrator to request cool-down blocks on one or both of you, should that be necessary, and have it done in a summary manner. That is not a threat or caution of any kind. What I am saying is, I don't think you need an admin because you will be somewhat empowering anyone you choose. Also, requiring that someone be an admin will constrain your selection. I think you both agree that you want someone who can understand the technical jargon without a lot of coaching. I would agree with that. --Una Smith (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I know is that planning now will save a lot of time and possible grief in the future. I'm thinking it's better for all if there are no surprises with the process and what will be discussed. We are all new to this so positive input is appreciated. If Jmh is on the same page he could post on the rfc how he would like this to move forward. We could tweak it there, and then seek help. At least this is how I could see us moving forward...but heck whatever works. At least on the rfc pages it would be a group effort and if we are ready for that stage it could move quickly.
It's not a content dispute although I am open to discussing content issues which are irritants. No point in letting wounds fester. I guess from my perspective we should be attempting to all get on the same page of how to work together on the adhd page. If there are content disputes, there are means to deal with content disputes already within wikipedia, and the process we follow in the rfc should follow future processes that we may use.
You are right, with regards to medical or scientific technical matters, expertise may be needed, although I don't envision such issues taking up a whole lot of time. That is unless we try to resolve issues "once and for all". If it's a " he said, she said", Jhm could pull "rank" since I assume none of us are Dr.'s. I am a little leary of going down this path.--scuro (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about pseudonyms is that no one has to declare their credentials and conversely we also generally do not (and in many cases cannot) confirm the truth of any credentials that are declared. So I would not assume that anyone is or is not an MD. Also, there can be no pulling rank unless all parties allow it. In some projects I see attempts to create a rank system, and unfortunately lists such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants tend to encourage it, but there are plenty of WP:MED participants who reject the notion that what you do in real life is relevant here. --Una Smith (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what's it's worth the thought has crossed my mind to "scale back" and go to the med cab with Xavexgoem as mediator. I don't know if that is possible, if others would agree, even if Xavexgoem would agree.--scuro (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Scuro Why don't you list how you want the process to go and I will make comments. The main thing I would like to deal with is content as I have previously made clear.
By the way I think it was Hordaland who removed the tags. Maybe you should bring this up under talk.Doc James (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it is just you and I remaining in this discussion.
The big question you have I gather is can one reference the TI the second question is can one reference the US gov from 9 years ago.
Vannin stated a while back wrt the TI that "I would view it as a review, comparable with other reviews. I don't think I would put it ahead of other reviews, though. Reviews, and meta-analyses are all subject to some bias in that they have a set of criteria for which studies to include and also in what they conclude from the studies they review. The therapeutics letter is focussed on one set of criteria. It is a bit short, though, and so does not have the same scope as the more traditional academic book chapter to go into depth with discussion of the issue. --Vannin (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)"
Have posted a question on the ADHD talk page. Wondering if you think this question is fair and addresses the issues? Might take a number of days to get some comments.--Doc James (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have added a number of references that agree with the TIs conclusions. One is a book by Dr. Barkelys the another is a published meta analysis. Hopefully this will put these questions to rest. The TI may not be an ideal source but what it says is supported by multiple other publications and is not actually controversial. Doc James (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - will have a look at that page, although what with work beating me up I'm getting less Wikipedia time these days! I think you're recalling the discussion titled Wikipedia's undue weight policy blah blah blah - the user there was trying to use a Templer & Veleber review which so far as can be established doesn't exist (Templer DI, Veleber DM. Can ECT permanently harm the brain? Clinical Neuropsychology 1982; 4(2): 62-66).
Later, under the heading "Wikipedia's undue weight policy 2" blah blah blah, JuneTune - remember her? - tries to do roughly the same thing, quoting "The author reviews reports of neuropathology resulting from electroconvulsive therapy in experimental animals and humans" based on a 1977 'review'. She got the wrong author (it was Friedberg PMID 900284), and I'm not sure it's much of a review, but hey.
Will comment on the general point when I have time - meanwhile, if you fancy a quick laugh, check out what you said under the heading "rehashed OLD references" in the link above...! Nmg20 (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I add arbitrary breaks to very long discussions for the convenience of editors who want to reply without scrolling through thousands of words or who have slow internet connections and find such pages load very slowly. I would normally just use the words ===arbitrary break=== to make its status as a convenience link perfectly clear, but MEDRS has many long discussions, and that would result in duplicated links (especially in the archives).
As every editor at WP:MEDRS is both intelligent and experienced, and apparently every editor except yourself is familiar with this convention, I have no fears that they will be confused or somehow forget what was written in the immediately preceding replies. I have therefore restored the arbitrary break and ask that you not delete such breaks in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was simply the poor choice of word and the location of the break that I was objecting too. You have the wheel if that is what you desire.--scuro (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that you objected to the word "education", since I took it directly from your then most-recent comment: "...MEDRS article is most likely largely an educational article." The name of the link doesn't matter to me, so long as it exists and is unique.
I admit that it is the nature of arbitrary breaks that they are placed in arbitrary locations.
Not sure what point you are trying to make or why you are sinking time into this. MEDRS is educational but where you put the break is right in front of the newly introduced spectrum anaylsis.--scuro (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because I have some hope that we'll reach an agreement, which I primarily interpret as you not deleting any future arbitrary breaks.
The title "Education" had nothing to do with spectrum analysis. The break and erroneous title had a way of isolating the newly presented SA and confusing the reader. Clear now?--scuro (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FRC
I wouldn't say that WhatamIdoing is advocating for me. I think that she is advocating for continued productive editting and by stopping all the problems we were having she is doing just that. When you say that you are not sure I understand what you are offering. It is true I do not understand what you are offering. If you could clarify that would be appreciated.
WRT the UBC reference. I have added a number of further post backing up the articles conclusions. All references say about the same thing. I am waiting for you comments.
I have also added my thought on inline tags. I feel that they would be used like wheasel words. And as I said a number of times before a better approach would be to find research that refute what I have presented. In science it doesn't matter if the researcher is famous what matters is is the researcher right. Science honors ideas it does not worship peaple, except of course maybe Einstein. If you can find others who disagree and have reasonable arguments then you might be able to bring me arround otherwise I hope that we can agree to leave them out.Doc James (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know I don't think there is any policy on inline tags. Even if we had that discussion on the the ADHD page, it wouldn't mean much if at the end of the day we still disagreed. Wikipedia is not a democracy and a partial consensus of the ADHD talk page would mean squat. We could bring it to the village pump, but we have done that before and still disagreed about the interpretation of what was said there. What I think is going to work is if we talk one on one with X and hammer this out to everyone's liking. --scuro (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not know what else you wish to work out. We have agreed to be civil. We disagreed over the tag issue. We disagree over sourcing. I have suggested solutions to both. I am just waiting for your response if you wish to give one. We have X, Abd, and Whatamidoing watching over the page to make sure things do not get out of hand. The page has however been tranquil lately which I think is a good thing. Doc James (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind tranquil...I like it better then stepping on the, "take no quarter", ADHD talk page treadmill. I'm looking for broad agreement. Not pockets of agreement. If you want to do that, the rfc is the place or if you don't like that, lets see what X can come up with. I'm not falling into the same old routines. It's like marriage counseling, you can't just say I'm over the blonde, everything should be as it was. :) --scuro (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Links to: WP:FAN... Under the policy section: "As with most of the issues of What Wikipedia is not in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. ... the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research."
The information on the Ron Paul page that you are tagging as fancruft is verifiable, neutral, and not original research. As I said on the talk page, it's not fancruft, but is most likely overly detailed for the bio and needs to be parred down. Instead of tagging it, how about you edit out the information you feel is absolutely unnecessary (for example, edit out his best track time, but not that he ran track). Thanks for reading. Foofighter20x (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scuro - I am replying here because my response would probably get lost with the many comments on Ron Paul. Here's an earlier youtube video that explains phasing out entitlements: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FNs4jbUjgg (Dec. 19, 2007) Note that he is talking about federal entitlements. I am not familiar with his writings however which might be a better guide. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not Factual At All
Scuro: When you engage someone on an article discussing whether facts or opinions should be posted and they retort with a well thought out post, it is not acceptable to reply with a sarcastic and argumentative tone (this includes calling someone "bigboy" or a "blowfish"). If you wish to be taken seriously in commenting and editing anything, I suggest you attempt to address issues and facts and stay away from attacks.
Well 206.180.38.20 your interpretation of what happened is fascinating. I'll simply state that what was posted wasn't factual, it was personal, and there was no attempt at real communication. Ideally one shouldn't retort in a similar fashion but I'm not perfect and neither is Wikipeida. I'll try harder not to respond to trolls next time. --scuro (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LG I do believe that you are not an administrator, and the tag was put up in good faith so it certainly seems like you are overstepping any authority that you perceive that you might have. Not only that you are characterizing my actions, which is an assumption of bad faith. What do you have to say to all of this? --scuro (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are an established editor and you abused templates. Even after this warning I see that you again template abused Doc James. You are an aggressive editor and hostile. I have never met you before but you greeted me with hostility and combativeness.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?00:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The both of you are taking down POV tags repeatedly without a word of communication before you do it. Who is hostile? I need to put up the 3r tag so I can file an edit warring complaint when the right time comes. I invite you to place the POV tag back on the page and communicate as other wikipedians normally do. --scuro (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The both of you are taking down POV tags repeatedly without a word of communication before you do it. I need to put up the 3r tag so I can file an edit warring complaint when the right time comes. I invite you to place the POV tag back on the page and communicate as other wikipedians normally do. --scuro (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Even so, to file an RFC you need to demonstrate that you have made an effort to communicate and resolve differences. I don't see it and noticed that especially during your RFC. You wanted editing to occur on the article without tackling and resolving issues, such as ownership. These issues had been major roadblocks, and continue to major roadblocks to proper editing on the article page. That won't look to good when you do file this RFC.--scuro (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is you my friend who is reverting. I'm posting a pov tag and your removing it without discussion. It's not reverting when you are trying to put something up on the page. It's reverting when you take it down in an edit war. That is wrong and goes against wiki policy and you know this.--scuro (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Literaturegeek | T@1k?03:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the warning Literaturegeek, I hope everyone reads it closely. I've attempted to use the talk pages so that people won't unilaterally pull down my tags. I've done this over months. I've attempted dispute resolution twice with James but in both cases he never finished the process. Discussion hasn't worked. What is happening here is that Wikipedia policy is not being followed. I intend to make a formal complaint shortly about ownership of this article and how I am not allowed to even post a pov tag. --scuro (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have only disputed one source and are failing to use reliable sources for your views, just deciding I don't like what ref or article so I am disputing. All that has been asked of you is that you use reliable sources to back up your POV. It has nothing to do with ownership.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?03:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listen Literaturegeek. James has made certain that I have posted virtually nothing on this article since he got here. That is called ownership of an article and Wikipedia strongly discourages this. If I post a POV tag no one should take it down unless there is a consensus that it should be taken down and you don't do that with a quick show of hands. That is not discussion or communication. Wikipedia has a clear definition of what a consensus is and if you haven't read it, you should. No one should pull my tags down and state that I am wrong afterwards. That is not the way it should work, and that is why I am making a specific issue of just this one tag. It's high time that this lawless behaviour stopped.--scuro (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked multiple times for you to find and put forth research. This is what I do. Everything I have added to this page is referenced. Almost all of it to peer reviewed literature. If you disagree with the literature that I how found that means nothing. You need to find a source that disagrees with the literature I have found. THIS is how wikipedia works. Therefore I will revert the tag again.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Might is right, and you are wrong" Wikipedia? This must be some special form of wikipedia that I have never heard of before. You need to build consensus and you don't do that by telling someone that is the way it is after you revert. You know this. Simply because you think you found a good reference doesn't mean it is good, or that the passage isn't OR. The burden of proof lies with the citation and the passage it supports, not with the person who questions it. Not considering questions shows total page ownership.--scuro (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
WP:IGNORE"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". First off there have been no warnings from administrators about edit warring. Secondly there is no consensus on the talk page. I have not been allowed to edit the article for many months. Virtually all of my edits have been reverted by an "Ownership" editor. I have gone through 2 lengthy mediation processes with no result. An administrator was part of that Ownership RFC. The contributor continues to revert the only edit that I continue to make on that article, and that is to stick a POV tag on the article. The article is biased and I have stated why. By not being able to edit, the article is biased and will continue to be biased. The tag is warranted. I am breaking the rules because there is no other way to alert the readers of wikipedia that it standards have been lowered.--scuro (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
---
In a nutshell, I have been denied the right to edit or post tags on this article for many months. The recent edit "war" was me posting a POV tag, and another contributor constantly pulling it down.--scuro (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait out this short block and take the time to fully appreciate all the comments found on that article's talk page. You had plenty of warnings on this and it doesn't matter whether they were done by an admin or not. Note how re-adding of the tag after lengthy discussion is disruptive, which is why you were blocked (ie to prevent further disruption). I think the decline reason above for WP:POINT is fitting. Nja24707:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When a contributor is denied the right to edit a page because of page ownership issues: i)and this occurs over many months, ii}and many administrators are aware of this, iii) and two formal mediation methods are used, one being an RFC focused on ownership (supported by an administrator) to try to get this behaviour to stop, iv) and this contributor never finishes mediation sessions.......well then are other contributors supposed to meekly be controlled for years? Why ignore the elephant in the room? If you believe in the notion that you can break any rule if Wikipedia has become dysfunctional, then you really have to ask yourself, is a peaceful talk page the prime directive? When things become dysfunctional disruptive things normally happen. Please address not only the effect but the cause of this problem.--scuro (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an idea, which admittedly you may not like: stop editing that particular article for a while (just walk away). It can be difficult, but I've done it in the past and it really made editing on Wikipedia that much more enjoyable. Cheers, Nja24717:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I walked away for over two months from all of wikipedia. What would make my editing experience more enjoyable is not another break but if I were allowed to edit. Take a look at my edit summary since I've returned. On the ADHD controversies page, I've only ever attempted one edit. I believe I had every right under wiki policy to make that edit and no one should have removed the tag. The tag states,"Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2009)". No one sought consensus, everyone unilaterally removed the tag, and then posted reasons afterwards. To me that sort of behaviour is obvious edit warring. I would really appreciate it if you watched my posts on the ADHD controversies page over the next day or two. They will be brief and there won't be many of them. If you do take the time to read them you will see that everything that I have stated is true.--scuro (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS THE WAY THEY APPEAR
After a contributor filed a 3R complaint against me, soon after they lobbied to have me investigated in a Wikietiquette probe. I'm glad to say that in the end the truth came out. It is well worth a look to see what is wrong with Wikipedia. [[1]]--scuro (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see this wiki article. Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages You are continuing to use the article talk page to discuss other editors in a negative light unjustly. Please resolve your disputes and flaws you see in articles by finding reliable sources. Wikipedia works on reliable sources not endless debating arguing, attacking and criticising, which turns talk page into a discussion forum, a drama filled discussion forum at that.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?05:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I ask where is the drama coming from? The topic is consensus building, can we stay on topic please?--scuro (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scuro, please don't try and single out one of your edits to try and make me look bad. Have a look at the talk pages, your discussions have generated probably a 100 kb worth of data in less than a week with talk page forum like discussions going back and forth which really have little to do with the article. You are not providing reliable sources, it just appears you want to have a drama filled discussion and wear your opponents down. Reliable sources, reliable sources, reliable sources, that is how you get the article neutral and it is the only way wikipedia works. I have no choice but to start reverting your edits as it is getting too much for me and I suspect others having to deal with pretty much pointless discussions. It is the accumulation of the same arguments and drama which seems endless. The talk page is not a forum. Talk about reliable sources and cite reliable sources. You consensus build by producing reliable sources, not consensus building by talking about personal POVs, like your POV versus another editors POV. Screaming article ownership is a red herring as you are not producing reliable sources or trying to edit the article using reliable sources. Things like that don't help. There is nothing to consensus build about as you have not produced reliable sources. That is for internet chat forums, not article talk pages. This is the last time that I will explain this to you. I am sorry to be so harsh.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?05:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am providing very solid reasoning for my viewpoint. I must be sounding like a broken record now because I don't know how many times I've stated that I don't need a a super-duper counter citation to question if a citation is a good citation. What I want LG is that the process is respected. If it takes a 1,000,000 kb to do this, I'm there. You see I've had enough. Now I hope your not going to wait around for me to make edits because I make them very rarely now. That's because they are almost always removed on the ADHD pages. That's called page ownership, check into it. But perhaps you talking about reverting my talk page posts!?? That would be silly or censorship, which ever you prefer. But rest assured that I have "heard" you, and no need to apologize. --scuro (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted the ADHD controversies talk page.....please step away from the computer and get some sleep. Good night!--scuro (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a dispute, Scuro, follow WP:DR. It works, if you are reasonable. Literaturegeek removed your Talk page post improperly, and reported you for vandalism improperly. I have made no judgment on the underlying issue, and I will assist you in seeking consensus if you ask. You are right on principle, but not necessarily on the facts; however, my goal on Wikipedia is, in fact, consensus, genuine consensus, excluding nobody except those who effectively exclude themselves. At the very least, every editor has the right to full expression of their views on article edits, though not necessarily at the place they choose. Good luck. I warned Literaturegeek for the Talk page removal. --Abd (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abd, you are the master of innuendo framing. Thanks for helping in the background, but as requested several times before, could you kindly not communicate with me.--scuro (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, please consider the request I've made three separate times now and get back to me.
Secondly note that I've re-opened the WQA. Essentially what is below is the topic of the re-opened WQA proposal.
Below are comments about some of your recent posts:Note some of these are considered at the WQA linked to above
Making a big deal over someone properly inserting a direct response into the middle of a paragraph (to address the question at immediately at hand) only causes further disruption and you should avoid doing that please.
Here is exactly why I need you to give me precise details, line by line of what you take issue with, along with your sources to verify the claim.
This is a start, but truly I need you to go line by line and back it up with sources, not your personal opinion.
This statement clearly shows you need to step away from the situation (for your own sanity and others), or removing yourself from the topic al together. Nothing good will come from continuing with this perspective, and I have concern over the reality of it as you haven't complied with the request for details that I first put to you at the WQA. Further, is it really necessary to play the victim?. You need to realise that this has been a long dispute for everyone involved. Nja24708:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I have no idea what you are talking about. Second I have asked you not to write on my talk page. I am interested in research. Until you provide studies that back up your POV I have nothing to say to you. Cheers.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledge wrongdoing and be civil as you said you would at your RFC, and there are no issues. But if you are uncivil, do you really expect that no one should ever tell you so on your talk page?--scuro (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heya mate, as the editor has asked you not to edit his talk page please do try to adhere to his request. Thanks, Nja24707:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will do so as long is he is civil, which he hasn't been. Or, do you think someone has a right to be uncivil and not hear about it from the person they were rude to? I've also provided proof of his uncivilness, because he denied having any knowledge of acting that way and he is always asking me to "back things up".--scuro (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'As long as' nothing. You are not to edit his talk page per his request. If he reports to me or another admin otherwise, then you will be blocked to prevent further disruption. Nja24706:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. You are continuing to start pointless debates, being disruptive on article talk pages and churning out 100 kbs per week or so of discussions which are uncited and it appears your motive is simply that you enjoy annoying other editors with endless debates. Please provide citations for your position and make constructive contributions to articles and discussions.Literaturegeek | T@1k?21:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Literaturegeek's totally groundless complaint
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
Okay LG, you do just under 25 edits in an hour and a half. A fair bit of this is just chopping material out of articles because you think the article is to "long" or you feel that the something is no longer relevant. You do this unilaterally and with no discussion and talk. And then I revert the 3 separate passages which had no business being removed. Now you call this edit warring? Seriously?!?? It's time to step away from the computer again.--scuro (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use the 'comments' section of the collaboration page to re-hash content disputes that you're part of. Thanks. Nja24707:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
There is no danger that I will engage in an edit war. Coincidentially a topic ban (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban of user:Scuro from Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder) was proposed at the same time as this 3R block was put on me. The topic ban is a very unjust action. I have added no original text or removed text, beyond a one time revert of 74 words of a probable fringe theory, since at least Nov 4 2008. Why should I be banned when I haven't altered the article in over 6 months? I need to be unblocked so that I can defend myself. No one has heard my side of the story. I also need to seek help from Wikipedian administrators. Nja247 who is seeking the topic ban is not a neutral party in this action and has been warned already for abusing the despute resolution process by administrator Ncmvocalist ("This sort of abuse of this dispute resolution mechanism is unacceptable"-see archive #63) in my recent Wikiquette alert that he filled. I would like to alert Ncmvocalist, that he is abusing a process again. Also, I disagree with this block but that is a very minor issue at the moment.--scuro (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Notes on this request:
Another admin blocked you for edit warring, thus prima facie you have done it. Are you saying that the blocking admin made it up?
Continuously edit warring is not a minor issue.
Once I noticed yet another 3RR block, and received several messages again today on my talk page regarding your continued disruption I decided to post my proposal. I can assure you that me and another uninvolved admin didn't collaborate to dream up a fake 3RR violation and then plan to have a topic ban proposal done to coincide with it.
You do not need to be unblocked to 'defend yourself' as you can edit freely here. We will post a statement you make regarding the proposed topic ban on your behalf. In fact, right at the top of my proposal I made a statement nothing that you're blocked and that they should view your talk page to see any statement you have made.
Ncmvocalist is not an admin. There was a discussion on his closure already at ANI and no one cared, thus move on please.
I will alert Ncmvocalist that you wish to speak to him.
Overall the decision to topic ban you is not mine, but the community's. Thus please don't accuse me any further. Nja24717:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may comment below in "Transcluded section of User:Scuro's talk page" which I have transcluded onto the ANI section. No comment on the unblock request, I haven't reviewed it. Note that Ncmvocalist is not an administrator –xenotalk16:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nja247, in your own way are you trying to put words in my mouth? I do not at all see you as neutral party here. What is important to note is that Nja247 started the topic ban process when he had been warned about abusing the "dispute resolution process". As stated earlier why is there an attempt to topic ban me when I have virtually added no original material or taken no material off of the page for over 1/2 a year?
I want to state that there is absolutely no danger of my reverting, I want to be able to defend myself/seek help, and promise to do no reverting on any page, for whatever time period xeno sees as reasonable. I plan to also appeal this ban, as I see it as wrong, but will have no time to do so in the immediate future. I respectfully ask that the ban be lifted now.--scuro (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no topic ban enacted at this time, it is still under discussion. The topic ban is being discussed for both the articles and their related talk pages. The discussion relating to the block can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN3#Scuro_reported_by_Literaturegeek_.28Result:_24h.29 . If you are disputing the block, please address that. If you are disputing the topic ban, you can do so in the transcluded section below, or wait out the block and dispute it right at ANI. –xenotalk20:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Xeno, I think I am at a distinct disadvantage in defending myself when others can vote and post directly onto threads on the proposed topic ban and all of my comments get stuck in the transcluded section at the bottom. The comments lose their context and become much weaker. I should be able to respond to any accuser on any thread within that proposed topic ban. I respectively ask that you post this on the proposed topic ban:
I will not post on the proposed topic ban until I am granted the same rights as anyone else.
This is a gross abuse of process.
That the process shouldn't be closed until I have had a chance to fairly confront my accusers.
...and finally that I have virtually added no original material or taken any material off of the ADHD page for over 1/2 a year. Why is a topic ban necessary?--scuro (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heya, going back to what you said yesterday: I was hoping you could take a minute to explain why your edits found in your contribution log are (generally) solely edits to the subject of ADHD? Do you disagree that that seems to indicate use as a WP:SPA?
Also please do not misunderstand the closure of the WQA. It was closed as a content rather than a conduct dispute. The way ncm closed it (ie the unfortunate wording used) has been discussed at ANI. It's not important to go into this in any further detail as ncm and I likely agree it's water under the bridge. Instead of worrying over my alleged wrongdoing (for trying to sort a long running dispute that I was never part of) you should concentrate on why you're in this position. It's tendentious editing at it's best here, ie you've been blocked for 3RR twice now, but it's always someone else's fault; and you've never responded to my good faith requests for sources. Why is that? If you would have done so, or possibly took a paragraph that you dispute and redone it how you like with sources for me to look over then maybe I could have assisted. However we're well beyond that point now. Nja24708:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am being taken to task by multiple contributors including yourself. Editors who don't have the background will jump to conclusions as they already have. As to SPA, I've been seeking out topics that I enjoy writing on. I've tried a few and have recently found that I like writing about human rights cases. The unfairness of the ADHD page always pulls me back. If process was respected things would be very different.--scuro (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
help
I would like to appeal this 3r block and would like the advice of other contributors about my reasoning. There were 20 plus edits done by LG in the space of 1 and 1/2 hours. A number of the edits of content deletion, removed large swaths of material from the article. Initially I reverted all 20 plus edits. She reverted back. I then went over every edit made, and reposted a few of the most important pieces of material deleted. For instance there was one section which explained scientifically how exactly medication works for ADHD. Had I done a second blanket revert, instead of actually working with the most important material, I wouldn't have received a 3R block. Can I put forth the argument that this was really only two groups of edits?--scuro (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to pop over and let you know that I do want things to work out, meaning I'm willing to work with you. It's obvious from looking at the logs from the past month that things are far from fine, thus things must change. I understand you believe others are at fault, but I do hope you realise you are not blameless. Admins don't just randomly block for 3RR violations, and hopefully you have come to recognise potential faults after reading the commentary at ANI by eight editors who support a topic ban against you. I am willing to compromise rather than continue with an outright long term topic ban, which as of now seems as though it's got community support. The compromise would entail you admitting to making mistakes and agreeing to a shorter term ban on things related to ADHD. During that period I would ask for you to take sample paragraphs or sentences from the article that you have issue with, fix them to your liking, and then submit them with sources for consideration. The fundamental issue I have, and I think it relates to the page ownership issue you speak of, is that this in an encyclopedia and therefore anything that's even remotely controversial in nature should come with a cite (otherwise it can be removed).
Think this over. Alternatively you can let the topic ban at ANI roll on. If you want it to stop and are willing to compromise, then you must know that you will need to make changes to your behaviour by genuinely accepting that mistakes have been made; apologise for them; and generally change the way you do things and agree to work with the community foremost by providing sources straight away. If you don't think you've made mistakes then obviously ignore my offer and hopefully you will be vindicated at ANI. Though again consider all the various comments there by your current and past acquaintances and also keep in mind admins don't like throwing around 3RR blocks. Nja24718:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the offer would involve all the things noted above, but more specifically a revert limitation (WP:1RR) and the editing restriction of probation. The former restriction would be due to your two recent 3RR's, whilst the latter would address the dispute issues. Time limits are open to discussion, though I'd think six months on 1RR, and four months probation would be reasonable. Essentially they will need to be long enough to make an impact, but of course can be varied later if things go exceptionally well. The probation will allow for editing by you after your work has been considered and is deemed well cited. Note that if you've got good cites, then I promise you I will actively defend its insertion.
Again you may well ignore this offer and stick with the likely outright topic ban, which from the discussion at ANI would likely be at least six months if not indefinitely (the latter open to later variation depending on community consensus). Nja24719:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point here was that the compromise can't work or be agreed to if you continue going around in circles and don't accept some responsibility for the position you're in. Nja24711:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocked
I've unblocked you so you can participate at ANI. You may not edit in articlespace until your block would have expired. If you do so, I will reblock you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peace on my talk page would be VERY much appreciated. Nja, could you kindly cut and paste your, "I'm feeling helpful", post onto your topic ban proposal page? I will respond to it there. I would like to deal with all of those issues there, and would also appreciate the input of all contributors, who might not come onto my talk page.--scuro (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Going forward
scuro, I've been asked to review the ANI discussion as a neutral third party. I also had a brief look at the block, but I think the block is simply an element of the wider issue which should be examined at perhaps a more focused and organized venue. Would you be willing to take a break from (or take it easy on) the articles while one of these processes is engaged? I think the venue should be of your choosing; an RFC/U which would focus on the issues editors specifically have with your interaction on the articles, or perhaps even a request for arbitration that might also examine the issue of the interactions between editors with different points of view on ADHD-related articles generally.
A content-based RFC is also an option but I think behaviour (and not necessarily yours alone) is what seems to be the issue here. One of the common issues raised in the discussion was that you often fail to provide sources to back up your (sometimes lengthy) talk page arguments. Reliable sourcing is the foundation upon which consensus is built. I think you will find better success implementing changes to articles directly and/or through talk page discourse if you back up your claims. Otherwise it will just be a lot of dialog back-and-forth with no real outcome - a result that doesn't help anyone.
Did I not provide citations in defending myself during the proposed topic ban? When I know that there are at least some interested parties who believe in process, I make the effort. What I saw on the ADHD talk pages was citation attrition. Numbers mattered to them. One bad citation can be propped up by two good ones, never mind that the original citation was bad, and never admit that it was bad. My citations would be pulled down because they were not formated properly. Frankly most everything I have posted in over a year on those pages has been pulled down. In that environment do you blame me for not seeking citations? What would be the point? This is a page ownership issue and I've said so all along. If they want to explore content too, I have no problem with that. We went down this road before at the RFC, it almost worked. I see no reason why we can't start from that point. Check the end of the discussion page on his RFC. I can take a vacation, and I'd be interested to hear if others can during this process.
What I don't want is to go through is another Kangaroo court. No one should have to face what I did over that last week. I don't want an open door where many visitors can pop in and take pot shots to overwhelm a process. I don't mind exploring any issue, including my own behaviour, but the focus shouldn't be just on me. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. It could focus on process and behaviour. I'd strongly suggest that this start with Doc James. Most issues on those pages start between myself and him. Since no process was ever used here, I'd suggest something like a med cab with a twist. A med cab with mentoring, possibly mentoring while editing on the page when we are ready for it. Mentoring would be appreciated. The wiki processes we tried, and my own attempts at change haven't worked to date. I am truly committed to finding compromise and peace.--scuro (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that all parties need to accept the mediation, I gather from comments at ANI that at least some of the parties may object. As Durova said, enough forms of dispute resolution have been tried such that WP:RFAR may be the next logical step. It would also ensure fairness to all parties involved. I'm not very good at doing RFAR, but if you think this is the best way forward, I believe Durova is prepared to draft a request. –xenotalk06:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you still think the MedCab solution will be effective and acceptable to the parties, then by all means go ahead and prepare the request. Can't hurt to try. –xenotalk14:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I get the feeling you're a little worried at the fact that this case has brought to arbitration. I would urge you not to panic (here, take a towel), I think RFAR best venue for all involved to move past the slump in consensus building. It will ensure that you are treated fairly. –xenotalk14:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Xeno, I fundementally disagree with how all of these processes have been used. Looking at the requirements, none of them should have been filed. I can't believe that this has jumped to the last step of solving a problem. This deeply troubles me and I am beginning to question everything about wikipedia. What type of organization ignores all of it's own processes? Does this not hold true?: "Wikipedia has a rich set of methods to handle most abuses that commonly arise. These methods are well-tested and should be relied upon".[[4]]
What we have here is a group of editors who generally all have the same POV. You have two editors who has the polar opposite viewpoint of myself. And then you have me. These editors have made absolutely no effort to go through the proper channels, nor to even try and work things out on the talk page. A few of them also seem to have large amounts of time for wikipedia. My wife thinks that I am nuts to spend so much time stating my case. I can't even begin to keep up to the amount of material and accusations they are posting. Can you imagine the amount of time I would have to spend defending all the accusations that already exist, and that are yet to come? Have you considered that if they actually came to the table in good faith, one on one, we could solve this really quickly? Instead, by short circuiting the system: they avoid the need to treat people fairly, to go through the proper channels, or to even talk to me in a polite and reasonable way.
Why should I go through this? I've wasted 10 days of life already on processes that shouldn't have been filed. I'm not happy at all.--scuro (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously think there are concerns that need to be worked through. From what I understand from the other parties, they've been at the table and telling you that you don't provide reliable sources; you say you used to provide them but stopped bothering (can't quite remember why but you said it was an issue with other editors). Don't you want that sorted out? The arbitration was (I believe intentionally) titled "ADHD" rather than "Scuro" because (I assume) the filing party agrres there are issues across the board the need worked out. You said you didn't want a Kangaroo court and I think RFAR is the best place for all sides' concerns to be heard impartially. –xenotalk16:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that there are issues that need to be worked through. BUT, they have never come to the table. Doc James abandoned both mediation processes. Coming to the table first requires both parties to earnestly communicate with the other party, one on one, in talk. Five to one is totally uneven, especially with their sheer volume of material produced. Sheer volume was already a problem at the "topic ban proposal". And, I'll bet this is also already a long collection of statements. I can't keep up to any of it.
I really have to ask, why have we thrown "good faith" out the window? Why does everyone assume that two contributors can't work things out simply by talking? Why are so many assuming guilt? When I actually do engage against this group, I come out very well.
When you take "talking" off of the table, you have corrupted one of the core values of wikipedia. That value is consensus. Why seek consensus when you can simply railroad someone? While I see that your intentions are honourable, I am dismayed.
Finally, while the case is called "ADHD", it's all about Scuro. I request that the title be changed to Scuro to be more accurate.--scuro (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really must say thank you for earnestly talking to me. It's been two weeks of intense and building pressure, and these talks are a welcome respite for a change. Looks like it is going to go ahead. If it does, that will be it for me. If this is how wikipedia does things, I don't want any part of what you folks are doing.--scuro (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dishonest
While I understand the intention of the filing party to made the Arb case about overall behaviour on the ADHD page, it hasn't born fruit. It should have my name on it, and to call it anything else is dishonest. No one has talked about other issues and other parties involved in the request recognize this. (ie- Overall, I think the title of this arbitration request is a little off. It is not really “ADHD”, but rather “Scuro and the Question of Disruptive Editing.” Thank you for your time, J Readings). This is the second time that I have requested the change. The request has now also been posted on the filing editor's page.--scuro (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Scuro. The titles of RfCs and other lower DR "cases" matter a lot as to content/conduct etc. But ArbCom looks at the whole picture, no matter what the title. Sometimes filing parties are surprised at who gets sanctioned! Even though all the statements are about Scuro, ArbCom won't just rubber-stamp them; they really look into things when they accept a case. - Hordaland (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
my version
I could collect the diffs of a lengthy period of my edits on the ADHD page, and then the reverts. It would conclusively show page ownership by Doc James. I could then show that Abd kept me off the page before Doc James. But, do you think any of this would matter at all? I'm being railroaded by a band of POV editors and by a few other editors who have an axe to grind with me. Yeah, as Nja stated, I'm playing the victim. I can't keep up to it all, you read that stuff and the way it is twisted and untrue, and that really isn't good for your soul. It's been two weeks of this sort of stress. I could counter pretty well every significant issue that they have raised and then show that page ownership was the root of this whole problem. Remember the RFC filled against Doc James was about page ownership. It doesn't matter, now they are sifting through every edit I've ever made. Whatever I state, will be refuted. It won't matter if what they state is accurate. They will simply post to win the attrition war. So there you have it. My version. This case doesn't belong at the arb. It hasn't hit ANY of the criteria necessary to file. One on one, with mediation, this could be slowly worked out. I would be vindicated. I've offered that, but why would anyone bite? They know that they don't have to follow any dispute mechanism to go to arb, get it accepted, and have me sanctioned.--scuro (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking Consensus
All right, this is getting really frustrating. I have been trying to seek consensus with you for about a month now. Even when everyone else agreed, you would still have none of it because you did not agree. It's impossible to make everybody 100% happy. Consensus has been reached multiple times, and yet, you still continue to defend your beliefs and now, yourself. We have tried mediation, consensus, and all that good stuff in the past, but, quite frankly, you did not respond well; too concerned with your own interests, when you could have actually listened to what about 15 people, including administrators, were telling you. Well, now, it got to the point of arbitration, which I did not want to resort to, but, frankly, it had to be done to finally drill this into your head:
Looks like I'll be busy in the next little while. On the other hand if you want a crack at mediation, we almost had it done, I'd have lots of time to produce sources.--scuro (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, for someone who never wants me to post on their talk page, why are you rehashing points you have already made at Arb on my talk page? If either of you have proposals for mediation, I all ears, otherwise what you are doing on my talk page could be construed to be a form of harassment.--scuro (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: fundamental issues for all of wikipedia brought up at ADHD Arb which you drafted
Could you please look at the Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD page. [[5]] Issues have been brought up which implications for all of wikipedia. Thank you, --scuro (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All right scuro, I'll cut you a deal: add as many tags as you think are neccecary to ADHD, and I'll see what I can do to get those issues resolved. Fair? I'll post a notice saying that your tags should not be removed, unless they break the bounds of common sense (i.e., complete article rewrite) Fair?--UnionhawkTalkE-mail02:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your offer is welcomed and sounds practical. Make it at the Arb and see if you can get support. It would be a start. On another matter, I'd respectfully like to keep Arb stuff off of my talk pages, I ask kindly that you honour that request.--scuro (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this point you should make your proposal at Arb. Posting at Arb would show good faith on your part. I see value in what you suggest, so thanks, it is a very welcomed offer. If you don't like posting at Arb we could try to work it out on the ADHD talk page. Looking to solve everything on my talk page isn't practical. There are 6 against me...possibly 8. I don't want the kind of traffic that a back and forth deal would create on my talk page. So again, I'd respectfully like to keep Arb stuff off of my talk pages, I ask kindly that you honour that request. Thanks, --scuro (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You definitely shouldn't think of it as people being against you. Wikipedia is meant to be a colloborative encyclopaedia, not a battleground. If you work together in good faith, and follow the rules, then a lot can be done without drama. I've also never withdrawn my offer to receive from you revised bits that you dispute along with sources to see what I can do. Again, I'll actively defend inclusion of properly sourced materials. Nja24706:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nja, please respect my requests...I've already asked you once that you give me peace on my talk page. Bring these issues up at Arb. Anything is possible there.--scuro (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy note
This is just a courtesy note telling you to ensure the important parts of your evidence are kept, you need to shorten it to less than 1000 words.--UnionhawkTalkE-mail17:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, your evidence is closing on 2,000 words... You're going to have to shorten it. Longer evidence is less effective overall (heck, when was the last time one of your long rambles on talk got across to people?) I understand what you're saying, and, I guess that we all must assume the presence of a belly button, but, there comes a point where people are just done reasoning, and some form of action has to be taken...--UnionhawkTalkE-mail11:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I have requested before, and yesterday requested on the Arb talk pages, please post arb stuff on the arb talk pages. I will respond there if I have the time.--scuro (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any continuation of this conversation should be moved to here, as this is what Scuro prefers. However I should note that this is a valid notice and you are encouraged to read the statement at top of the evidential page regarding 1000 words as your work could be removed by clerks without any further warning. Nja24715:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom case
I've just heard about the arbcom case. I haven't been active very much in the past.. not sure how many months, six maybe. I'll try to help defend your position. My own experiences with you have been mostly positive. The proposal to topic ban you from ADHD articles is very absurd. I've been in a few arbcom cases myself, and it's nuts how easy it is for small things to get blown out of proportion. I don't know if anything I say will help or not, but this all seems very unfair to you, just being thrown into a case like that. -- Ned Scott07:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is nuts how this went to Arbitration when it met none of the criteria for arbitration. Don't know if you can do much since you were not around when most of the dispute happened. Where you could offer support is your recollections of Doctor Sobo (Ss06470} or Abd if you had many dealings with him. I wrote about both here. [6] You could also look at the workshop page. [7] It appears that none of them want to negotiate, it appears that they all want sanctions. If something I stated is a good proposal, agree with it and offer further suggestions. That might get the ball rolling.--scuro (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: ADHD and arbitration
I'll be leaving for vacation on Friday. I hope to get away for fifteen days although I may only be able to take 10 days. This would have me available on July 10th at the latest. I did notice the Doc James had posted for vacation time too with the clerk until July 18th yet the evidence and workshop is supposed to be done June 26th. I've just briefly looked at the post proposals last night and don't believe I'll have enough time to respond before I leave.--scuro (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard back from you. It looks like I will be gone for 15 days. I've been piecing my vacation together over the last few days and simply don't have time to respond properly to what is on the page. A response would be most welcome as this arbitration deadline is just one more thing to worry about when my plate is full. Please respond.--scuro (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to some of your questions at the case talk page. I can notify the other arbitrators that you would like to delay the case, but as it is a fairly straightforward one, they may not want to delay any further. As a reminder, you can contact the Committee at any time by email at [8] if you can't access the wiki. --bainer (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this could be helpful in regard to clarifying the 'controversy' issue; What do you think?
The book is "Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a clinical guide to diagnosis and treatment for health and mental health professionals" and the author is Dr. Larry B. Silver.
I'm not sure how to work this information into the article and would appreciate any advice you might have greatly.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Literaturegeek | T@1k?23:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
