Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD

Case Opened on 20:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Case Closed on 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: [/index.php?title=&action=watch 1], [/index.php?title=/Evidence&action=watch 2], [/index.php?title=/Workshop&action=watch 3], [/index.php?title=/Proposed_decision&action=watch 4]

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration, and report violations of remedies at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

 * , filing party

Requests for comment

 * Wikiquette alert
 * Requests for comment/jmh649
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-09 Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
 * Informal attempt at content RfC
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive481
 * Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-05-01_Electroconvulsive_therapy
 * Topic ban proposal at ANI

Statement by Durova
At the time of filing this request, roughly half the administrators' noticeboard is taken up with the sprawling ADHD dispute. It began with a poorly substantiated request for a topic ban on Scuro, and has continued to grow despite referrals to other processes and cautions that noticeboard format is not well suited to matters of this complexity.

A dispute definitely exists here. Several editors assert that Scuro edits tendentiously. Yet they have failed to provide cogent evidence of disruptive editing and have attempted to reverse the obligations of dispute resolution: arguing essentially that Scuro ought to be sanctioned unless he can prove that he shouldn't be. When informed that the case for sanctions has not been established, they tried to negotiate lesser sanctions in lieu of providing additional evidence, etc.

One of the major concerns three years ago when the disruptive editing guideline was drafted was crafting the page in a way that addressed disruptive individuals while preventing groups of like-minded editors from railroading minority viewpoints out of the discussion. Either scenario is superficially plausible here, and it would take more resources than the admin boards have to determine what is really happening. None of the parties are migrating the discussion to a more suitable venue, so initiating this request on the strength of prior dispute resolution attempts.
 * Scuro's statement quotes me from a portion of the noticeboard discussion where I was asking for evidence of prior dispute resolution. Prior dispute resolution did occur, as listed and linked above.  It was necessary for me to dig it up.  Durova Charge! 23:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Scuro has posted to my user talk to request a renaming of this proposed case. It would really be up to the arbs and clerks to implement the suggestion.  Durova Charge! 19:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With regard to FloNight's acceptance comment, what would you have me do? At ANI I first waited silently for evidence, then requested it explicitly when the discussion dragged on without it.  After discussion spun out further (mostly in lieu of evidence) I pulled up the prior DR attempts myself, listed resolution options, and recommended other community-based solutions in preference to arbitration.  None of those suggestions were taken up.  This RFAR initiation actually coincided with thread closure, where Xeno (acting totally independently) recommended RFAR as one of two viable options and then endorsed this request.  How, then, am I to be construed as having interfered in a destructive manner?  Respectfully request a refactor of that acceptance comment; it is unfounded and prejudicial.  Durova Charge! 19:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jmh649
Scuro does not follow WP:V despite many requests to do so. He is a tendentious editor as shown by his last 500 edits which occurred over the last 7 month. Included are all his edits to the main page related to ADHD. All his other edits took place in the talk pages. During this time he added one reference to a continuing education page, removed four referenced points, added 6 unreferenced statements, added 11 tags, and changed one reference so it no longer reflected what the ref states. This means he made about 450 edits to the talk pages / mediation / RFC / etc. His edits include:
 * Unsourced material:


 * Removing sourced material:


 * Changed reference material so that it was no longer correct as per the ref (this ref originally said 2 years):


 * Tags:


 * Added ref:


 * He also posts on my talk page after I have asked him not to  and .  This is after I provided four references and the author who first developed the idea.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

More on the content RFC I filed is here It quickly went off track. I said at the last RFC that I would seek help earlier before things got too out of hand again. I posted Scuro editor war for which he got block and Nja247 than began attempting to mediate. We went thru a WQA, than to ANI, and finnaly here.

I have asked for other at WP:MED to help mediate for which they were rebuffed and I nominated this article for the Medical Collaboration of the Week to bring more eyes to this issue which Scuro has attempted to drive away.

One of my first contact with Scuro was him suggesting to revert all the good faith changes I had made to the page in a less than civil manner: "Should I revert back to a month ago. Would that get someone's attention?"

Previous to that he made some belittling remarks about NICE (the National Institute of Clinical Evidence) when I suggested that "using none peer reviewed, none journal published material from one person is not a good enough quality of evidence" which is the same and only reference he has added to the ADHD page in the last 7 months [

He continued with may more less than civil remarks including "As any good alternative health care professional or "Doc" in the field would know, ADHD is a chronic condition" which I take to implying that I am less than good and "May be we should be citing Doc James. He seems to know it all.". It was not until may suttle insult such as these that I began to return them in kind. In the last RFC I have agreed to be civil and think that I have been so.

I would like to highlight the work some editors here have done. I have brought the obesity page to GA status. I have also added many images to Wikipedia. LG has also made substantial contributions to Wikipedia in the areas of pharmacology see benzodiazepines. Hordaland has done extensive work on sleep medicine related articles.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Scuro

It is not diffs we are asking for but references. You have yet to comment on WP:V after over 7 months and multiple editors has asked. That is why "I do not think we will ever agree" and "the only way things can really continue is if you gets band". We have been through multiple forms of dispute resolution as listed above.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you could provide difs to show page ownership it would be appreciated. I have not nor have I ever removed any references cited to the peer reviewed literature.
 * The majority opinion is stated well in the article. It is the minority opinion that you have been trying to remove as you believe that all opinions other than the chemical one are FRINGE.  I would like to state that the opinions I have found references for are often NOT opinions that I myself hold.  We at Wikipedia are NOT here to determine what is right and what is wrong.  We are here to try and reflect what is in the literature.
 * I do not hold the same views as Breggins. He however has been published in the peer reviewed press.  That alone makes his opinions MORE than FRINGE.  Barkley's published opinions are also important.  Referencing a power point presentation of his or no peer reviewed teaching point however are not.
 * We do not agree it seems on research methods. It is the source NOT the author that is important.  Scuro you do not get to discount published opinions just because YOU disagree with them.
 * I know that I do not understand all the processes for dispute resolution and what order they should be completed in. But we should try to resolve things.  We are here now so hopefully things can be resolved.  If the process was not perfect I hope all can look past this and deal with the real issues here.
 * By the way I am more than happy to seek consensus. This is however determined by references.  The lack of references from Scuro has made consensus impossible to acheive.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Literaturegeek
Scuro tries to drive editors away. The diff I have just given was a consultant psychiatrist who has published on ADHD and wanted to contribute to wikipedia. I would like to make this clear that this is not a content dispute. The citations used in the article are of high quality, review articles and meta-analysis for most of the ADHD articles so am not particularly worried about article content as the refs I have used defend themselves being secondary sources. Scuro does not produce any citations for discussions or additions to the articles in question and as using your own POV is not a reliable source. The complaint is endless circular frivolous arguments which rarely lead to any benefit.

Scuro has been asked repeatedly to use reliable sources for their discussions or editing the article rather than relying on their opinion. ,, ,

I had edited the ADHD articles for a few days when scuro showed up. The first day of meeting me scuro thinking that I was a new comer or would get frightened by a warning template sent a 3 revert template to my talk page after doing a single revert!. I took this as an attempt to get me to back off of the article. Scuro has been accused of "ruling the articles" in the words of the consultant psychiatrist who tried to edit the article and of using circular arguments to wear down opponents and this stretches back years. Something must be done to put a stop to this nonsense. What is more infuriating is that scuro shouts ownership to other editors who simply request that scuro produces citations before making changes to the article. The problem with scuro trying to drive away productive or new editors who he doesn't like is not just a flash in the pan but stretches back months and years. See. ,, , To demonstrate the degree of disruption scuro causes is quite difficult unless one is to read over hundreds or thousands of their posts to grasp the level of disruption. However, I would like to submit this long discussion Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)/Archive_3 as evidence and I would really appreciate it if the reviewing admins could read it to understand how draining it is of productive editors who have to engage in pointless, circular and often ridiculous arguments. Finally I would like to point out that whilst durova has pointed out that no evidence or little evidence was submited, that was in the early stages of the admin noticeboard discussion. As the discussion progressed diffs were retrieved by multiple editors to verify the allegations. Evidence has now been gathered and submited. Thank you for taking the time to look into this long standing problem. I would like to point out that editors of opposing views on ADHD are supportive of a block on scuro, thus this is not "politicially" or POV motivated. This is purely disruption motivated.

Scuro as mentioned above will add tags to articles but then not provide any citations for why the article is disputed. Essentially he turns talk pages into endless repetative, pointless debating arenas draining editors time. He essentially is turning talk pages in debating discussion forums.

The disruption caused is very significant and time consuming and time wasting but unfortunately difficult to detect as it is not as obviously apparent unless investigating a lot of evidence and history.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  17:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to scuro

Consensus on your POV can never be reached because your POV and arguments are not reliable sources and thus are meaningless. You still have not justified your use of talk pages as a discussion forum and frivilous time wasting circular arguments. Churning out 100 kb of pointless unproductive arguments per week filling up the talk pages.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  15:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

To the reviewing admins.

I am an experienced editor and I have been involved in a couple of heated arguments on articles but the need for this type of intervention was never necessary nor Rfc, or anything like that. Such discussions were productive as we were debating reliable sources. Always resolvable via consensus and discussions on talk pages. I spent months debating talk pages with a user from Roche Pharmaceuticals but even that was productive as we came to consensus, improved article. I stopped using weak sources or we brought neutrality. I was involved in intense prolonged discussions on fluoroquinolone adverse effects article but the outcome was productive with a balanced and informative article. I became involved in a dispute on the temazepam article albeit it wasn't my edits in dispute but similarly the result was productive, a balanced article with verifiable data. All talk page debates, discussions which I have had previously always were productive albeit sometimes heated but this really is totally different from your regular disputes you see on wikipedia as virtually nothing ever productive comes from the endless circular arguments as they are not about citations (scuro never produces citations for their arguments). I say this to make it clear that this is putting a stop to enormous prolonged and endless disruption to the wikipedia project which bears no benefit to anyone and also to stop him driving away good editors, hence why you have editors of opposing POVs on ADHD articles supporting the block on scuro. I requote this piece of evidence, an enormous discussion, as a neutral example of how scuro behaves on wikipedia, Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)/Archive_3. It is a neutral example because the discussion is not specifically on ADHD or amphetamines. He filled up that talk page in a matter of days or weeks with ridiculous arguments and was impossible to reason with. I have only had to deal with scuro for a few weeks and it drove me to distraction.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  15:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to the latest submissions of evidence and also to the reviewing admins.

I thank both Abd and Hordaland who both also supported a topic related block on admin noticeboard for their submissions of evidence as it is good to get the views of people who have differing viewpoints from myself and Doc James on ADHD to show this is not a POV or article content dispute but is really a user conduct and behaviour situation. I strongly disagree with Abd's noble suggestion of conflict resolution, mediation or Rfc's as these have been tried already. Nja tried to mediate as a noble admin giving up his time to try and resolve this years long behaviour on ADHD page but now supports blocking scuro. Nja referred to scuro as "mate" and other friendly terminology in order to try and reason and calm the situation. Furthermore there have been years of editors who have tried the very nice, reasoning, diplomatic approach and those who have just thrown their hands up in the air in utter exasperation and lost their temper with scuro and left wikipedia or the articles in question. There have been Rfcs, admin noticeboard discussions and other "forums" of discussion in order to resolve this situation and to no avail whatsoever. This years of disruption with a huge volume of nonsensical countless debates has reached the stage where a final decision is required in order to put a stop to it. Routinely people are blocked for minor disruption such as doing repetative vandalism to articles which is very simple to resolve, a click of the undo button and that is it. What goes on on the talk pages with scuro is the worst disruption possible as evidence above has shown and has driven people to distraction even those with somewhat of a similar POV as scuro. If I felt that a dispute resolution was possible I would not hesitate to initiate one. Scuro keeps talking about building consensus but there is nothing to reach consensus on as the endless circular arguments are nonsensical and he never produces citations. Again scuro's POV is not a reliable source and thus there is no consensus to reach as wiki works on reliable sources.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  23:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Name of dispute

I think that the article should be renamed to reflect that this is a behaviour dispute rather than an article dispute. I have added two people who have dealt with scuro quite a long time ago in order to give a better historical perspective to this ongoing matter. One of these people dealt with scuro on the medicines reliable sources talk page and also submitted evidence on the admin noticeboard. Scuro himself has requested this.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  23:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

More evidence

Other users complaining of scuro disguising major bold edits as "minor edits", multiple times,User_talk:Scuro/Archive_1. Scuro was involved in a mediation process regarding electroconvulsive therapy which failed to resolve the dispute.Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-05-01_Electroconvulsive_therapy. Trying to destroy evidence submitted to this ArbCom by J Readings.. This shows dishonesty which is another problem.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  09:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet more evidence

Fighting for over a month over a few sentences including an edit war.User_talk:Scuro/Archive_1 A quote from this section of scuro's page by user Scolaire. He said "But the two of you fighting, day after day for four months, arguing over the meaning of one word at a time, is a bigger eyesore." This seems true to form, will argue endlessly for months on end and wil never quit. Complaints of scuro deleting large chunks of referenced data from the psychiatry article.User_talk:Scuro/Archive_1

Now this conversation is very interesting.User_talk:Scuro/Archive_1 Scuro constructs a very intelligent and scientific argument showing at minimum a good basic understanding of laboratory studies and the peer reviewed literature. He knows about the difference between injection and oral in test animals in terms of effects on neurons and other matters showing an above average knowledge that you would see in the general public. What is interesting about this is scuro typically causes nonsensical arguments which I and others have accused scuro of being designed on purpose to be nonsensical and circular to wear down opponenets and to get them to abandon the article. Also scuro made the comment, "A study like that would have caught my eye! Let me know if you find it." This shows that he does follow peer reviewed literature but his interest here is not to contribute to wikipedia constructively but for whatever reason which we can only wonder is to keep certain facts and data and viewpoints out of articles. Anyway I have submitted this evidence to show that scuro can when he wants to construct good and sound scientific reasoning to his arguments or nonsensical endless forum like circular arguments. I submit the evidence also to show that scuro's disruption of the wikipedia project seems to be part of an agenda, is tactical and malicious. Thus this is not a dispute which can "be worked out", that has been tried for years. Anyway regardless of of whether a Conflict of Interest exists or not (I have already sent a template a while back to scuro regarding COI but he ignored it), the behaviour and tactical wearing down of oponents, arguing for months on end about the same thing is just too draining on the editors who have remained and not abandoned the articles and something needs to be done.

Anyway I have finished pretty much editing the ADHD articles but I intend to keep them on my watch list but hopefully this can be resolved so that I and other editors don't end up with our time and energy on wikipedia being intentionally wasted on the talk pages with endless forum like nonsensical discussions. Discussions on talk pages where a person uses citations for their argument are fine but not this intentional unproductive disruption. There are other editors there who have a variety of POVs on ADHD so I am sure with scuro blocked neutrality will continue to prevail with diverse opinions represented in the articles but most importantly editors will not have to spend hours each day dealing with endless arguments and forum like debates.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  02:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Outcome I would like to see

Ideally I think scuro should be banned from wikipedia as he contributes little apart from disruption to the project. At the least I think that scuro needs to be blocked from all psychiatry and possibly also all pharmacology pages for a prolonged period of time, certainly the stimulant pages. These forum often nonsensical and circular arguments and debates have gone on much too long. Just have a look at scuro's contrib history and see how much time is spent either on talk pages (he practically lives on talk pages arguing) or else just deleting or editing warring.Special:Contributions/Scuro There have been endless interventions of every discription on talk pages with megabytes of data typed up in these endless disputes to no avail. As above there have been numerous "official" wiki project interventions and to no avail. The disruption has been enormous stretching back years and his talk page is evident of that. Hopefully a decision can be quickly reached as enough time has been wasted over the years with this disruption. The sooner it ends the better. Thank you for your time and reviewing this matter.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  03:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To Durova

With the greatest of respect I disagree with your views on scuro. You have not had any editing experience with scuro other than viewing a disruption dispute falling out onto the admin noticeboard. Although I guess someone had to file this ArbCom and I am grateful for you doing so. I don't agree with Flo that the dispute is resolvable via the community but I would say to Durova relax, no need to get worked up. We have enough drama here as it is. :-) I have to come to the defense of Durova though in that I think that he did the right thing filing this ArbCom. I disagree that other measures could be effective as years have been invested into trying to resolve this dispute with prolonged and severe disruption to wikipedia involving a large range of editors covering multiple articles. As far as the WP:DISRUPT guideline goes, reading it is an almost perfect discription of scuro's behaviour on wikipedia. That article describes this situation a lot better than I have done here.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  03:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To Ncmvocalist

I disagree with you but as you have not to my knowledge had personal dealings with scuro on article talk pages and only saw complaints on admin noticeboard. I understand why you think that this is just your regular argument on talk pages. It is not, I wish it was. I know the difference between intentional disruption and your everyday dispute. Been in several before and was able to resolve them myself or reach compromises etc.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  03:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To J Readings

Thank you for your submissions J Readings. I recommend reading this section of the disruption guideline DISRUPT which may explain why scuro has been able to disrupt wikipedia for so long.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  04:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To scuro

Jehochman was just an admin who gave a read over the admin board discussion and misinterpreted it as a simple content dispute and felt "it could all be talked out". He has no experience with trying to mediate with you or editing alongside you. In my view you still haven't justified your prolonged disruption of wikipedia and using the talk pages as a drama filled discussion forum for months or years.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  08:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Also you keep accusing people of ownership of articles, in particular Doc James. Do you have any evidence of Doc James having ownership issues on other articles? Doc James edits and has edited a wide range of articles and from my knowledge I have not seen him accused of ownership. It is strange that he only gets these sorts of accusations on pages that you edit scuro. Are you sure that it is not the other way around and are you sure that you are not distorting reality or facts? You however, have been accused of article ownership or "ruling the articles" and I saw evidence of it when you attacked me when we first met with a 3 revert edit war template after a single revert and then the endless frivolous debates. It seems to be that your previous ruling of the articles (see evidence above) was challenged by Doc James and then by myself as we did not back away and allow you to decide what stays and what goes into the article and thus now you accuse those who challenge your ownership of teh article as being ownership issues. I am getting tired of the manipulated facts but I am confident that the truth will come out in this process.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  09:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Scuro, the diff showing the ref doc james used is not by Dr Breggin.but is by Fred Baughman. You seemed to imply that he "referenced it" which is misleading but then gave a link where he quoted it in a discussion on the talk page, a big difference. Just wanted to clear up that it was not referenced material in the article as scuro post misleadingly appeared to suggest but was simply quoted on a talk page discussion.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  19:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Unionhawk
Scuro appears to have the terms "fringe theory" and "wrong" mixed up. Basically, he thinks that one of the major theories about ADHD, Social Construct Theory, is fringe, (diff) when it has been published in many scholarly works (results here) I have pointed out many times that although I personally don't think the social construct theory is accurate, it is still a major theory, and should be included..

He also seems to believe that because most of his edits get reverted, that there are ownership issues with the page, when it is never the same editor. He claims that an administrator has cited ownership problems, but he has not cited the statement. He victimizes himself as well in the process

I would reccomend a topic ban on scuro. The other parties in question were at no point out of line.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"No formal or informal attempts of mediation have ever been undertaken by any of the parties involved."
 * Reply to scuro

Actually, many formal and informal mediation attempts have been made at RFC, Mediation Cabal, the Talk Page for ADHD, and Wikiquitte. See above for proof of this dispute resolution techniques. Not mentioned here is the ANI thread (here is the best old rev I found...), or did you forget about that? Apparently, it takes arbitration to get you to listen, and even then, you still defend against it.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 11:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"I have pleaded with the other parties wishing to seek consensus with me"

Yes, and I have attempted to seek consensus as well. But consensus works 2 ways; you have to talk, and you have to listen.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 15:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What the crap? Gaming the system to remove minority views from the talk page, while you say that Social Construct theory is a minority viewpoint. I'm so confused right now...
 * And plus, Nja247 did give you some room, by not taking administrative action against you. You say that people need to talk and listen, but that also applies to you as well. The biggest irony here, is that you want consensus, but won't allow it if it is anything other than your viewpoint. It's rather frustrating...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 16:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

He, for the record :P--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 22:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to Hordaland

I would love lesser measures too, but the reality is that we have tried them before, and they have not worked.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 15:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to Abd

I have noticed that it has been mentioned a couple of times to change this from a content dispute to a user conduct dispute, or whatever. I agree; this is not a content dispute, this is an everyone-disagreed-with-scuro dispute.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 00:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Name of the Dispute

I agree. scuro doesn't quite understand what verification means, and pretty much forbids removal of content for any reason, even if it is unverified/unverifiable. He says that they should have a fact tag instead, but he never tags them himself. He rejects consensus (ironically enough) and just doesn't get the point. It's kind of sad that not even these statements can drill this into his thick skull...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 03:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to JReadings

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Just look at the talk archives, the AIV thread, RFC... I mean, scuro just doesn't get it. I just don't know whether or not to Assume no clue or to Assume clue..--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 03:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to Ncmvocalist

Statement by Nja247
Background

1st edit war block I first become aware of this ongoing dispute after responding to an edit war report filed against user:Scuro on 28 April 2009. At the time I decided not to block (diff), but instead to warn as I noticed dialogue between the parties on the user’s talk page. However, the dispute continued, which is why the user was blocked for 24h for continued edit warring the following day. It was after a denied unblock request by another admin when I urged the user on their talk page to take some time to cool off and I suggested a break (here).

My filing of the WQA I realised that this was an ongoing dispute (as noted at ANI for years), therefore I added their talk page and the ADHD article to my watch list. I noticed bickering back and forth, but it was after I saw Scuro's response on his talk page to what I thought to be a helpful offer/suggestion regarding the on-going dispute by user:abd that I opened the WQA. I felt that it would be prudent to get the community’s comments on the behaviour.

After reading over the dialogue by users at the WQA and Scuro, I thought that I would attempt to address what was the most obvious problem, ie the lack of Scuro’s provision of sources. This was my first direct attempt to get Scuro to provide me with sources. Generally, I believe the lack of sources goes to the heart of Scuro's view that others ‘own’ the article, as they are demanding sources. I've also asked for sources on Scuro's talk page (here) in case he missed my request in the WQA. In the end the WQA was closed as a content dispute, which WQA doesn’t deal with, and I should note that no sources were forthcoming.

My encouragement to follow DR Since me first responding to the edit war report, I've had five (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) dedicated threads opened on my talk page regarding the user’s conduct. As seen in those links, I had suggested an opening of an RFC on several occasions by the parties directly involved.

Filing of topic ban at ANI It was when Scuro received a second block by another admin for 3RR/edit war that I raised the thread at ANI for a topic ban. I felt this to be justified, particularly considering Scuro's response following the 3RR block, where he continued to deny any responsibility for his actions (even though it was the second similar block in a month). I also felt it justified being that I was receiving frequent messages about ongoing disputes on my talk page, had my requests for sources ignored multiple times, and as the disruption was spreading, ie Scuro had used the general comments section at Wikiproject Medicine to transplant the ongoing dispute there. This diff shows his comments, along with another request by me for evidence, and a particularly valid statement by user:Unionhawk to Scuro.

I wish to note that I privately approached more experienced admins about my proposal at ANI (including a draft) and none of their comments had cautioned me to do otherwise. I would not have made the suggestion unless I felt it necessary. Overall the disruption to the project was long-term, ongoing, and was spreading.

My hope from this process, and why it's appropriate

I agree with Xeno in that this process would be beneficial to those involved. It’s been a drawn out dispute, where (as seen at ANI) the arguments tend to be circular with little concessions and headway being made. An RFC would have turned into the same unproductive loop, which is why I also believe the structure here will be nothing but beneficial. I hope things can now be addressed between the parties. I've tried to do what I could, and I like to think I've done the best I could, whilst trying to make as few mistakes as possible. Overly, I wish everyone the best of luck in finally addressing the ongoing disruption.

My comments on statements made here

1) Durova  I have two issues I wish to briefly address about Durova’s statement. Again I did what I thought to be appropriate given the circumstances. I also want to thank Durova for preparing this report, truly. First, at the time I made my compromise offer to Scuro, there were eight editors at ANI who were in support of the topic ban proposal (and three opposes).  Thus I take issue with the statement "When informed that the case for sanctions has not been established, they tried to negotiate lesser sanctions in lieu of providing additional evidence, etc."

Second, I take issue with it [the topic ban] being called 'a poorly substantiated request', and statements that links to prior DR weren't given at ANI. I specifically mentioned and linked to the WQA in the opening paragraph of the proposal. Further user:Literaturegeek had provided links at ANI to the RfC on jmh, MedCab and also the WQA on 14 May at 11.01pm. From my analysis it was first asked by Durova for links at 2.15 am on 15 May (ie a little over four hours after they were given). Then it was said at 7.43 pm on 16 May by Durova "After two days of requesting the background I finally dug it up myself". I do concede that it would have been nice for me to have made those links available in the opening statement, but unfortunately I did not do so. Again I appreciate her efforts, and I think due to the large amount of text being produced there was a simple failure of communication. Nja 247 06:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

2) Scuro 
 * The 2nd WQA closure: Scuro quotes a statement given by ncmvocalist in his second closure of the WQA about 'my abuse of dispute resolution'. I'd like to point to a recent discussion between Ncmvocalist and myself.
 * Scuro's statement below about "my coercion" and me being "all about pressure and NEVER about trying to work things out" : As noted above, when the compromise offer was made there were eight in support and three against the outright topic ban proposal. I believe a review of the offer (and its addendum) will make clear my intentions (ie complete resolution and editing supervision). As it was only an offer, it could have been negotiated or rejected outright. I was 100% honest when I told the user in the addendum "Note that if you've got good cites, then I promise you I will actively defend its insertion." Further it should be noted that between the closure of the WQA and the opening on the ANI topic ban, I had no involvement in the ongoing dispute. The only thing I did do during that time is give brief replies to numerous notes made on my talk page (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). As shown I generally suggested RFC's to be opened by the involved parties. I also gave reminders to the parties to remain civil on their talk page when warranted. It wasn't until I woke up to two new notes on my talk page; noticed Scuro transporting the dispute to other parts of Wikipedia (the Wikiproject Medicine example noted above); and when Scuro was blocked again for edit warring that I decided to resume taking what I felt to be necessary steps to put an end to this very drawn out dispute. Also as noted I privately approached seasoned admins on my plans and no one said it was a bad idea. At its closure, the topic ban had nine clear supporters (user:Rdunn, user:J Readings, user:Hordaland, user:Jmh649, user:Abd, user:Literaturegeek, User:SheffieldSteel, user:Unomi, user:WhatamIdoing), with three clear (user:Dream Focus, user:Vannin, user:Durova) and possibly another (user:Jehochman), in opposition.
 * The quote used from Jehochman: That quote does not substantiate your new allegation of coercion against me. His comment had nothing to do with my legitimate attempt to compromise/alleged coercion of you. It was directly in response to my query on your talk page for you to please provide examples to substantiate another accusation you had made against, ie you claimed that I was putting words into your mouth at ANI. I wish to note that you never did provide those examples. Nja 247 12:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Scuro
No formal or informal attempts of mediation have ever been undertaken by any of the parties involved. That would include contacting me on my talk page and earnestly try to work things out.

Of the 4 steps listed on this arbitration proposal that confirm dispute resolution:
 * 1) two of the procedures were filed by myself and others, to deal with issues regarding Jhm649.
 * 2) The wikiquette alert filed by Nja247 is not an attempt at dispute resolution. It was closed by B' Wilkins who stated, "..but I would suggest at this point that there are no violations of WP:CIVIL nor WP:NPA to be dealt with, so this WQA filing can be closed as resolved". The file was reopened by Nja247 and closed again with this comment comment. "This sort of abuse of this dispute resolution mechanism is unacceptable...".
 * 3) Jmh649's "informal" rfc was a content rfc and appears to be nothing more then a few thoughts. Informal attempt at content RfC

At the topic ban proposal initiated by Nja247, Durova stated: "The proposal for a topic ban doesn't actually link to any evidence of disruption or to specific prior dispute resolution attempts. Two of the people who have supported this proposal appear to be in a dispute with Scuro, yet have failed to disclose their involvement at the sanctions discussion.... A topic ban is a serious matter, and if the requesting editors aren't dedicated enough to make reasonable efforts to substantiate a legitimate need for it then the community should never endorse the proposal: sooner or later that yields laziness and actual railroading, which is not acceptable".

Jehochman stated: "...as a totally uninvolved administrator, I see no consensus for implementing a community sanction. I concur with User:Gnangarra's advice above. Content disagreements should be submitted for mediation and user conduct can be addressed first by having two Wikipedian's make good faith attempts to address the user. Wikiquette alerts may be a good place to get uninvolved editors to review the dispute. Should that fail, the next step would be user conduct RFC. In the event of serious disruption needing an immediate block, WP:ANI is open for business. This thread should be closed, because I do not see anything further that needs to be done here".[] The editor with whom I've had the most conflict with, wrote this over 7 months ago:
 * "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".

If wikipedia allows contributors to skip ALL stages of the dispute resolution process it is setting a very dangerous precedent. Processes will certainly be abused as I feel they are already currently being abused. I have been open to consensus seeking all along. I have pleaded with the other parties wishing to seek consensus with me []. No one responded. I asked Jmh649 to join a mediation cabal with me and finish up our great progress at his RFC []. He didn't respond. Had he seen it through we wouldn't be here. Had anyone taken the time to earnestly talk to me we wouldn't be here. Make them come to the table first, if half of what they say is true about me then those processes will be further damning evidence and will make any punitive procedure a slam dunk. (what they say mostly isn't true or lacks critical context [] - in this case they claimed that I drove a psychiatrist who self published an article off of wikipedia. In reality he had been warned by an administrator not to abuse people two months before I joined, on those very same pages. He left after his third warning by two administrators ), If on the other hand, these contributors are not willing to communicate and mediate with me, that would be very telling in it's own right.--scuro (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to Ncmvocalist

"Ideally, if the involved users took the right series of steps and took it to the right venues from the word go, the community could and would have been able to resolve many of the underling issues here. However, as the opposite occurred, and the community will no longer be willing or able to resolve this, acceptance is indeed needed here".

To this I reply two wrongs don't make a right. I've offered solutions along the way, I've offered to seek consensus, both on all of the previous processes, and again on the pages. No one took me up on them up. Folks speak of meditation attempts but they are not true mediation attempts at all. In fact, Nja247's "attempt" was more an act of coercion, do this...or this will happen. Nja is all about pressure and NEVER about trying to work things out. The only true mediation processes were initiated by myself and others, and that was with regards to Doc James page ownership issues. I'll give him that he was a new editor at the time, but these exact same issues led to where we are now.

As I understand things, arbitration is the action of last resort. It is to happen after mediation has failed. These folks haven't even earnestly contacted me on my talk page with even the remotest attempt of trying to solve a problem. The funny thing is that I am so open mediation and consensus building, yet, everyone tells me it can't be done, even though they have never attempted it. So what we have now is a tar and feathering. Get enough tar and feathers and lets hope we cover this mess up. A few days from now, he will forever be branded as a troublemaker. Look he has got be guilty because we have so much dirt on him, and he hardly defends himself. Arb is about making a ruling after everything else has failed. I would defend myself, had anyone gone through the proper channels. I have done a good job of it too, when I have chosen to engage with this band of like minded people. But I shouldn't have to defend myself here. This case should never have made it here. Don't let them skip steps. I am VERY open to defending myself, and I am open to negotiation on this.

Arb is about making the case that we have gone to great lengths with this contributor. We have gone through all these mediation steps, and we have compromised several times, and still his behaviour hasn't changed. Arb shouldn't be about the need to score points, and sifting through every edit a contributor has ever made to score more points. If that is the basis of the case, steps have been skipped. EVERY STEP HAS BEEN SKIPPED, not one of the criteria has been met for Arbitration. This is so wrong. As I have said before, make them come to the table and at least attempt to talk. Funny things happen when there is dialogue.--scuro (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. You note that there were 8 who were against me, did you ever consider that such a polarized topic as ADHD would attract members from both extremes? For instance, Jhm649 is no neutral "expert" on the topic. [] He references Dr. Peter Breggin and Dr. Fred Baughman, highly controversial figures who believes ADHD is FAKE. Have you ever thought that contributors could game the system to eliminate singular minority viewpoints on a talk page? What if those who hold a fringe viewpoint are trying to squelch anyone who defends majority viewpoint? Much easier to do things in Wikipedia when there is no opposing viewpoint. So much easier to bring any opposing viewpoint to Arb then to talk or mediate.
 * Reply to Nja247

Nja247, shouldn't you have been trying to mediate all along? The incredible amount of pressure that has been applied to me within the span of 2 weeks didn't allow for real talk or mediation. Three weeks ago I was an editor who never had any administrative action taken against him. Three weeks later I am the Wikipediaian equivalent to evil incarnate. Nja247, mediation doesn't start with the mediator telling you that you are guilty, asking for apologies, and proposing a shorter topic ban. Mediation requires talking and listening. "Your compromise" was never an attempt at mediation or even compromise. It was an act of coercion. In fact, another administrator told you, "why don't you give this editor some space. They are evidently upset. Let them have peace on their talk page". []

I really would like the opportunity to defend myself on all issues raised. I see no reason why it's still can't happen. Your accusations don't stand up to scrutiny when examined closely. (ie Dr. Sobo []). I believe I would come out in a good light on virtually every significant issue, had the proper channels been followed. But it can't be done here. It would take months and months, especially if there was no arbitrator. I would have truly appreciated the opportunity at mediation on any topic. By railroading me here, you have escalated this to the point where guilt is assumed and you have not given me the opportunity to self correct any of my behaviour. You have taken away what I take as a basic right in wikipedia. I don't know how any of this will be solved but I am willing to mediate. Again, I am going to ask all of you point blank, are ANY of you willing to mediate issues and seek consensus? So far none of you have responded to this most basic of requests.--scuro (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * to everyone

Statement by Abd
Not ripe for ArbComm, recommend remanding this back to the community. If needed, an RfC or RfCs would develop and review behavioral evidence before ArbComm sees this again, and it may never be necessary to bring this up here again. I'll watch the articles more closely, and will assist as needed; Scuro has a clear and strong POV and is tenacious and difficult, but that can be restrained and channeled productively, I believe; if not, this will become obvious short of ArbComm; likewise DocJames is highly informed, perhaps an expert, and I'd prefer to retain his advice. Experts often become somewhat uncivil or impatient when faced with opposition that they consider ignorant. I'll be more quick to restrain him, should that be needed. (The "druged you good" comment was later struck by him.) --Abd (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I should say that I'm generically opposed to banning editors for discussion on a Talk page when lesser measures will do; for example, with local consensus, Talk page comments can be collapsed or archived, and if edit warring develops over this, well, there you go. On the other hand, Scuro was indeed editing the articles, with contentious insertion of tags and the like. If the case is accepted, I accept being a party, since Scuro long ago, unfortunately, banned me from his Talk page, and clearly considers me some kind of opponent. See. I'd forgotten about. I'd consider myself obligated to present evidence. --Abd (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Hordaland
I’ve been watching ADHD and ADHD controversies for half a year. The subject matter is controversial, of course, and the articles need work. Most of the regular and occasional editors really wish, I think, to achieve well-balanced articles and are capable of cooperating to that end, with the sole exception of Scuro.

I am very pleased to see that User:Unionhawk has given a statement here. ( S/he ) He is often one of the more sensible commenters on Talk, trying to get everyone onto a productive track. Unionhawk also tried to get help for the ADHD mess at Village pump.

As this exchange, ownership continues to be alive and well on the ADHD pages, demonstrates, Scuro has time and again complained of "page ownership" and "might makes right". These complaints often seem to be just for the sake of complaining (or, more subjectively stated: pouting), as on-topic discussion seldom ensues. S/he asks “Why must a lawlessnes environment be endured for months on end...” while most of us, I think, do not see any lawlessness.

In one talk-page comment which I can't find right now, Scuro said there'd be no point in hunting for sources, as anything s/he'd add to the article would be deleted anyway. Everything is about Scuro the martyr.

Scuro’s entries never include swearing nor seem aggressive; they always appear to be polite. We’re constantly being reminded to discuss content, not contributors. Scuro’s own “discussion of contributors” is somewhat subtle, as in Who makes you the singular judge of....

Just one time, to see if it would do any good, I decided to take Scuro very, very seriously and engage about a citation s/he didn’t like. Scuro meant that a source entitled “Suffer the Restless Children” couldn’t be used, as the title shows it to be biased. I defended the source, saying that the title “does show and is intended to show that the topic is controversial.” This was, after all, in the controversies article. The thanks I got for that was Scuro claiming, next day, that I’d meant the opposite of what I’d said, (last paragraph of this diff: ).

I cannot take Scuro seriously. One just skims her/his many entries quoting policies and guidelines at length, lecturing us all on what seeking consensus should mean. Only when s/he says "if no one objects ..." or "can we all agree on that" does one need pay attention.

Unless Scuro somehow magically learns that building an encyclopedia requires attention to the article, not solely to the Talk page, and that what should get included requires sources, I can't see that s/he'll be anything but a detriment to the project. - Hordaland (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to JReadings

After you linked to Scuro's user page, the content was changed (for the first time in over 6 months): Diff.

Statement by JReadings
On May 24, 2008, I stumbled across a few editors complaining about circular debates on the Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies article. Apparently, an actively established editor was challenging other multiple established editors by removing verifiable content from the mainspace article with the argument that the sources were either “unreliable” or “fringe” materials. The editor’s name was Scuro.

As a neutral editor with no vested interest in the subject matter (let alone any knowledge of it), I researched available materials using the following commonly used online databases: JSTOR, LexisNexis, Factiva, Google News, Google Scholar and WorldCat. A wide array of materials documenting controversies, medical objections and scholarly disagreement (both from academic journals and newspaper articles) were produced with the suggestion that editors on both sides of the discussion should review these materials for possible inclusion into the article. Scuro, who at the time lobbied for the deletion or merger of the article with ADHD (because he personally believed no real controversy existed outside of Scientology), immediately questioned the sources in what became a typically lengthy and pointless chat-forum discourse. The discussion went nowhere and editors (myself included), tired of the constant bickering, turned our attentions to other articles.

Now, almost one year later, apparently we are back to the same problems with new editors involving Scuro. '''In my opinion, this situation is not a content dispute. It is a longstanding behavioral problem that ArbCom can (and should) consider.'''

Scuro has been editing Wikipedia since 7 December 2006. He has made thousands of edits across the span of a few years in a very narrow range of articles dealing with mental illness. His userpage informs readers that he comes from a family of BiPolar relatives with strong editing interests in articles on mental disorders motivated by this history and thus the strong personal need to promote the “truth” (however he defines it) about the subject.

On the surface, Scuro seems to match the profile of a disruptive editor:

1.	He is tendentious. (Note: Wikichecker indicates -- and his userpage reinforces -- both short-term and long-term frequent visits to predominantly ADHD-related articles for a specific purpose) 2.	Cannot satisfy Verifiability: Doc James and others already provided sufficient links to this issue. 3.	Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging": Doc James provided several links. There are many more from over year ago when I watched the page. 4.	Does not engage in consensus building: the greatest irony. 5.	Rejects community input: whatever the majority indicates, Scuro tends to reject it. An example: nine seperate editors on the recent ANI complain about Scuro editing behavior and Scuro disregards the comments. 6.	Refuses to ‘get the point’: Nja247 already outlined above how and why the case arrived here.

Why has the Scuro situation evaded detection or resolution for years? I suspect that part of the reason is simply because ADHD-related articles are not widely read on Wikipedia and thus the wider community does not get involved. According to Wikirank, for example, Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies has only been viewed some 4,000 times over the past month (a pittance relative to the hundreds of thousands of page views for other medical subjects). Another possible reason is the sheer prolific (albeit seemingly polite) number of edits Scuro makes on the talk-pages, thus creating problems for reaching any consensus.

Questions that ArbCom should consider addressing in their deliberations should they take this case:

1.	Where is the line between good-faith editing to improve an article and gaming the system on Wikipedia ? 2.	When and how do single-purpose accounts cease innocently to be interested in editing a particular subject and become disruptive to the Wikipedia project as a whole? 3.	What methods should be used to curb unproductive behavior on talk-pages? 4.	Does consensus necessarily mean 100% agreement on a given subject’s talk-page in order for progress to be made?

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 (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by WhatamIdoing
I don't see myself as a valid or useful party to this dispute. I have, like many other editors in the past, attempted to help Scuro and other editors involved in disputes that touch on this area, but I got tied up with User:Posturewriter's efforts (now permanently blocked) to promote his novel theory of why he was tired before he started exercising, and I am limiting my current frustrations to User:Dicklyon's endless and tendentious efforts to promote the Truth™ at Feminine essence in transsexuality (the truth, as I understand it, is that Dick is mad at sexologists like Ray Blanchard for not giving credence to the lay opinions of transwomen with no background in psychology or medicine, like Dick's former boss), and the result is that I'm about six months out of date on this particular mess, and not at all interested in getting involved in it again.

My impression of Scuro as a result of these past encounters is poor. He doesn't seem to care about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines except as they might be used to bludgeon those with mainstream POVs, and he seems to assume that anyone who isn't with him is against him. When it looks like he might "lose" an argument, he shifts the goalposts, which means that nothing ever gets resolved. You start off discussing a fairly narrow question like "Is there any reliable source that supports this assertion?" and you proceed through discussions about whether or not it's polite to revert the additions of unsourced material, whether this woman he's e-mailing thinks that encyclopedias should be based on primary sources, whether a literature review quits being a literature review when it gets old enough (I'm not kidding), and end up with accusations of "bias" in people that were doing basic editing tasks, like removing unsourced assertions that are probably wrong. Oh, and all of this takes place on at least three different pages, with resulting miscommunications and misrepresented "consensus" from editors that had no idea what the context of his slightly strange questions are.

I've had Scuro pitch a multi-page fit because I left him a note that described him, sincerely, as an "intelligent and experienced" editor. His complaints about this simple compliment turned up on my user talk page, an RfC/U about jmh649, and a style guideline -- where, by the way, he was busily edit warring to prevent the addition of a simple arbitrary break into an extremely long discussion. His ability to assume bad faith in anyone he encounters astounds me.

If ArbCom members want a relatively short example of Scuro's style, I suggest reading one of these two pages:
 * Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/jmh649, where you'll find complaints that following recommended steps in WP:DR is not "playing fair", his efforts to ban a user from participating in the RFC/U, and that his own contribution to disputes be exempt from discussion because anyone that accuses him isn't "neutral" (by which I assume that he means "impartial"). (Jmh649, by the way, was a relatively new and inexperienced editor that happened to get sucked up in Scuro, et al's POV pushing; he has turned into a quite good editor, and Wikipedia is the better for having him.)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)/Archive_3, where you'll find a good example of his wandering, rambling approach. The relevant section is "only" about 90K.  Among the interesting points here is the reader's eventual conviction that what Scuro really wants is an excuse to remove a high-quality, peer-reviewed secondary source from ADHD because he disagrees with its conclusions, but he can't figure out a good reason to do so, or even a single criteria that applies to reviews but not to any other source, and he doesn't dare tell anyone which paper he is trying to trash.

Overall, my impression is that Scuro cares much more about promoting his particular POV about ADD/ADHD on Wikipedia, than about anything else. I firmly believe that the negative editing environment associated with Wikipedia's psychiatry articles would be significantly improved by a complete topic ban (perhaps allowing a single short message on one article's talk page or one user talk page about the subject each day -- simply because I'm basically kind, not because I think that these messages would result in an improved article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (10/0/1/1)

 *  Accept Comment I am leaning toward accepting this case as it is the sort of case which might have significant repercussions whichever truth is valid (either one editor disruptive over an extended period or the opposing view) - the examination of editor conduct is at least as important as mediating the dispute, which appears to have been taken through various channels. Of course waiting for further statements is a given. change to Recuse per my first and second edits to ADHD, reverted by scuro. I apologise for not discovering this sooner as I had completely forgotten until discovering it on beginning review of material. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept. Statements which haven't been written yet could sway me, but this looks like one that needs looking into. Wizardman  01:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept  — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept.  Roger Davies  talk 04:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Recuse. I have exceptionally strong feelings about the subject matter in question that would likely affect my perceptions. --Vassyana (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept to consider the parties involved here, and if need be, editing on the articles in general also. Going by the material here and the linked discussions, it seems that while there are still some avenues of dispute resolution that might yet be explored, the situation is sufficiently complicated that arbitration is appropriate at this time. I would remind parties of the limitations of the Committee's role in relation to content disputes. --bainer (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept. Appears to be a simple case of the type that the Community can handle, but since the case was brought here with comments by the initiator that will make it next to impossible for some members of the Community to accept a binding Community resolution to the dispute, we need to accept. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept. Risker (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept per bainer. Carcharoth (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

=Final decision = All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Neutral point of view
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.


 * Passed 11 to 0, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view and sourcing
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.


 * Passed 11 to 0, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability and citing sources
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.


 * Passed 11 to 0, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring considered harmful
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.


 * Passed 11 to 0, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Decorum
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.


 * Passed 11 to 0, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Personalising disputes
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.


 * Passed 11 to 0, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 11 to 0, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
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.


 * Passed 11 to 0, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring
2A) has edit-warred on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and associated articles:
 * September 2008:, ,
 * September 2008: (initial addition, July), ,
 * October 2008: ,
 * November 2008:, , ,
 * April 2009:, , , , ,
 * May 2009:, (partial revert),  (partial revert)


 * Passed 11 to 0, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Incivility and personalising content disputes
2B) has occasionally been incivil and has personalised editorial disputes:, , ,


 * Passed 11 to 0, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring
3A), also known as "Doc James", has edit-warred on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and associated articles:
 * October 2008: ,
 * November 2008:, , ,
 * April 2009:, ,
 * May 2009:


 * Passed 10 to 0 to 1, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Incivility and personalising editorial disputes
3B), also known as "Doc James", has occasionally been incivil and has personalised editorial disputes: , , , , ,


 * Passed 10 to 1, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Literaturegeek
4) has edit-warred on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and associated articles:
 * April 2009:, ,
 * May 2009: ,


 * Passed 10 to 0 to 1, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Remedies
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
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.


 * Passed 11 to 0, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Scuro restricted
2) 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.


 * Passed 11 to 0, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Superceded
 * 2) is topic banned from all pages, topics, and discussions related to attention-deficit hyperactivity, broadly defined, for twelve months.


 * Passed by amendment motion 6 to 1, 01:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Scuro placed under mentorship
3) 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.


 * Passed 10 to 0 to 1, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Jmh649 restricted
4) 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.


 * Passed 9 to 0 to 2, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Literaturegeek advised
5) is advised to refrain from edit-warring.


 * Passed 11 to 0, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 11 to 0, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors encouraged
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.


 * Passed 11 to 0, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications, amendments and/or subsequent motions

 * 25 July 2009 - Request for clarification (1). Parties were advised to work together, rather than trying to test or explore the boundaries of the case decision. No action was deemed necessary.
 * 23 September 2009 - Request for amendment (1). Two amendments were requested. No action was deemed necessary.
 * 21 October 2009 - Motions to amend (1). Three amendment motions were proposed, with one motion passing. The passed motion was:

is topic banned from all pages, topics, and discussions related to attention-deficit hyperactivity, broadly defined, for twelve months.

This motion passed on 8 November 2009 by a margin of 6 to 1, with 1 absention. This motion supercedes remedy (2) above.