User:Scuro/Sandbox

Next step - request for comment
WP:RFC


 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:NPA
 * WP:EW
 * WP:OWN
 * WP:SOCK
 * WP:3RR

The problem as stated by Vaoverland on the med cab,"I am a administrator and a 5 year editor of this and many other articles, and a strong believer in both collaboration and mutual respect. Both are currently lacking with the current chaos in this article's edit process. One major player is very new to WP although highly-educated and knowledgeable on the subject. The lack of successful Wikipedia collaborative experience is painfully evident. The current "Chop, Delete, and Substitution" actions by this user borders on censorship of content so that opposing views cannot be seen.

The main problem is ownership and it's many ugly unwikipedian stepsisters like sock puppets and edit warring. I believe that jmh649 believes that Vannin and I are working together to control the page ("The two of you do not control the content of this article") and we are incapable of objectivity. For whatever reason he believes that only he can protect the page ("I however will not let this article become completely unbalanced as it was before I arrived"..

False accusations

IN jmh649's OWN WORDS:
 * "Now to be serious I would be happy to work together in good faith. I however think good faith is lacking and there are two editors trying to control the page".
 * "Warning to all editors Scuro is very disruptive. He made editing here very difficult as he has his own ideas about what constitutes evidence and does not come around to reason".
 * "The village pump actually said that the references I added were better then the references you had there". (The references he added at the VP were bogus)...You do not format your references even after saying you would. You have LIED. You miss represent other peoples comments. You no longer deserve good faith. I now see that you are only intent on pushing your own point of view and keeping this article bad".

Taunting

IN jmh649's OWN WORDS:
 * "They I answered one for you. But will you understand the answer? That is another question".
 * "I accept your apologies for you being a difficult editor".

Edit warring

IN jmh649's OWN WORDS:
 * I didn't revert it. I improved it. He he he :-)
 * jmh649 admits to "stripping" two citations, one being the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
 * jmh649 comments about how edit warring is "fun".

EXAMPLE OF EDIT WAR

A passage and citation is dropped into the lead. In this passage a claim is made about the proponents of controversy. The issue discussed was what is the threshold for a true controversy as defined by Wikipedia. It was stated true minority opinion is needed. Over a month this specific issue was brought up five times. (1) (2) (3) jmh649 did not respond to the 4th post, which ended with this statement,"for these reasons the sentence must change or be deleted. That will be done shortly. Input is welcome)". (4) At this point an inline pov tag is added beside the word "clinician". .jmh649 reverts three times within 24 hours.  The fifth post states, "Since there are no objections to this line of reasoning I see no reason why the deletion of the sentence should have been reverted. When a POV tag was placed on the sentence I see no reason why it should stripped twice. Would this sort of behaviour not qualify as edit warring"? (5) jmh649 did not respond to this post. A 3r warning is put on his page. jmh649 reverts for the fourth time and I decide further reverts are pointless. At no time did he seek consensus or compromise with this line of reasoning.

Bad faith

IN jmh649's OWN WORDS:
 * "Somehow I do not think we will ever agree".
 * "They only way things can really continue is if he gets banded from editing these pages".
 * "You do not seem to have any true desire to discuss the issues at hand or work together...You are trying to control the content and POV of the article".

Personal attack

IN jmh649's OWN WORDS:
 * "they must have druged you good".
 * "My fellow editor just doesn't recognize evidence".

Contributor not the content
 * In med cab jmh649 commits to a "content not contributor", pledge that administrator Xavexgoem asks us all to sign.
 * One day later jmh649 gets personal again: "but Scuro seems to demand much more evidence for points he disagrees with then one he agrees with. This is a guy who make references to power point site, drug company websites, and people personal web sites. So there would be a lot of silly tags that would need to be added".

ownership issues not answering questions
 * jmh649 states, "I however will not let this article become completely unbalanced as it was before I arrived".
 * Contributor Vannin states, "lots of ownership, and very little collaboration".

IN jmh649's OWN WORDS:
 * Previously James had stated,"...they are more then fringe as they are backed up by lots of published data including the most recent article by the National Institute of Health". James is asked to provide a link from the NIH showing fringe theory acceptance. James replies, "Dear Scuro it is not another editors job to answer every silly WP:LAME question brought up by another editor".

sock puppetry
 * Notice the first sentence starts, "I assume (hope) jmh649 won't mind..." The post is sign stamped by Jmh649. Yet is also time stamped as unsigned by 92.1.168.244.
 * In this link 92.1.168.244 thanks Jmh649 for his, "brilliant links".

attempts to find a resolution
 * An olive branch extended by Vaoverland.
 * An olive branch extended by Scuro. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder&diff=242814141&oldid=242754221}
 * Mediation cabal initiated by Scuro.
 * Xavexgoem inviting Jmh649 to the med cab.
 * An olive branch extended by Scuro and invite to the mediation cabal.
 * Scuro offers to mediate any dispute.
 * Vannin offers to mediate any dispute.
 * Xavexgoem's motion to close med cab which was seconded.