Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Tendentious editor
Included below 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 reference stated. 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:

Does not follow WP:V
Scuro has been asked many times to use references however he says he does not as he is concerned they will be removed. Nja247 however previously promised to support any addition of well referenced text to the article.

Incivility
Scuro has made many less than civil remarks. These include one of his first comments to myself :"Should I revert back to a month ago. Would that get someone's attention?" This was followed by "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.". He continues to make unfounded accusations of ownership which he is unwilling to substantiate.

I replied to his uncivil remarks with uncivil remarks of my own however have agreed not to make any further uncivil remarks in the last 6 - 8 months and crossed out my previous comments. One can see who started with uncivil comments here when I first began to edit these pages.

Example of incivility / taunting of other editors. ,

WP:SPA
Scuro is a single purpose account and does not believe ADHD or any of psychiatry is controversial.[]  As can be seen here many excellend secondary source published in peer reviewed journals have been found to support the assertion that ADHD is controversial. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies

reply to Scuro

 * We are not here to add our own opinions to Wikipedia we are here to add the published literature opinions. I believe the social construct theory of ADHD is wrong.  It does not however mean that this opinion does not exist and is not prominent.  This is about verifiability.


 * Many other forms of mediation have been tried. It seems here that Scuro is describing them as being wrong


 * Abd has offered to help. Scuro however states that he does not read his posts   And below provides much more detail of the dispute.  I have found Abd comments very useful.  He is a very courteous and well though out editor.  This I would add as evidence of both Scuro's inability to accept mediation and his black and white response to people.  Scuro deals with editors rather than content.  This is why I have asked him to not write on my talk page.  I am interested in discussing content not being tagged because the references that I have found disagree with Scuro's POV.


 * He still sees nothing wrong with any of his behavior or the fact that in 500 edits he added only one reference.. This ref was than replaced by one to the peer reviewed literature.   He calls page ownership him not being able to unilaterally remove well referenced material.

Further reply's

 * Scuro is unwilling / unable to show that other editors have removed well referenced text from the ADHD page but yet continues his accusations against others of page ownership and the removal of said well referenced text.


 * If you (Scuro) are the only one who disagrees this does not mean consensus has not been reached. You have in no way shown that I have any page ownership.


 * Issues with Scuro revolve around both content and behaviour. He refuses to use references or acknowledge the references posted by other, and he is uncivil and tedious.  I was hoping to deal with content thru a RFC content.  This rapidly became off track [] so an attempt to address his behavior was continued thru a 3R warning and comments on his talk page.

Evidence presented by Unionhawk
The ANI Thread

Scuro rejects outside opinion
Scuro rejects outside input, insisting that any reversion of his edits constitute ownership. In one instance, Literaturegeek removed some unsourced content. This was subsequently undone, one edit at a time, by scuro (as he is not a rollbacker) and then reverted back by Literaturegeek

Scuro makes false claims and accusations
He has made several dozens of claims that ADHD related articles have ownership issues, simply because his edits get reversed. 

He has also been warned twice for abusing warning templates for using a 3RR warning when only one or two reverts have been made. 

Scuro's arguments consist mostly of logical fallacies
Many of Scuro's arguments are just not logically valid. For example, an argument that more editors would hurt "ownership issues" on ADHD related articles makes no logical sense

Scuro is more concerned with discussing issues rather than fixing them
Just look at his last 250 contributions:, he has made 1 mainspace edit out of the last 250.

Scuro claims that nobody has attempted to seek consensus with him
He seems to forget the mediation cabal cases, Wikiquette alert, and RfC. These cases can be found here:

You may also note that according to guidelines set at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, the mediation process was followed pretty much by the book.

Probably unhelpful comment regarding Scuro
Scuro pretty much fits every sign of a disruptive editor, found here, and simply refuses to get the point. He has been pretty good at evading scrutiny, and when he does come under scrutiny, he is extremely talented in ensuring that the discussion goes nowhere at all.

Digging for the positives
Digging through scuro's talk archive, and he started out great. Typical newbie comments... just as expected. Then, it takes literally one more section to realize that this pattern has progressed from an AGF type warning, to a little tiny warning, to basically commending someone for having article ownership, to scientology accusations ( which kind of makes sense... *kind of wait... no, it doesn't) then... barnstar? friendly with dealing with controversy? Mediation cabal... 3RR warning, followed by, "Don't get your knickers in a knot once more Konrad. Simply use discussion per Wiki policy and that would solve this problem. --scuro 22:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC) His account was created in December 2006, and has really started with the same issues he has now in May 2007. Multiple attempts to solve this have been made since 2007.
 * We've had over a month of discussion over 3 disputed sentences, and it hasn't solved anything. This is just to let you know that I've reported your reverts on the noticeboard. KonradG 03:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)"

It's 2009 now, and this still is not resolved.

Response to Scuro
For the record, I have ADHD, so, I know it is a real medical disorder, and not just some behavioral trait caused by bad parenting and whatever else those people say.

However, I know that this is a major theory, accepted by many more people than just the scientologists. It is not fringe. Is it wrong? Yes. But is it a minority, fringe opinion? No.

And, for about the fiftieth time, every step in mediation has been attempted and you still do not listen. Consensus involves listening as well; and strong arguments. When it's like, 10 people with strong arguments, vs. one with weak arguments the 10 win. You need to listen, instead of just adamantly thinking you are right. This has gone far enough, and needs to come to an end now.

Reply to Literaturegeek's "Main complaint endless forum debates on talk pages"
I agree completely. This is the main issue here. There is just a long term pattern that is really, not possible to provide diffs for. It's incredibly time consuming, and I'm just sick of it.

Response to Scuro, in regards to his response to Abd
A little hypocricical today, are we? Because, "His lengthy screeds were usually peppered with personal comments and judgments, and it became very annoying to spend lots of time trying to make sense of what was written. Occasionally sprinkle a few insults and fabrications on top, and you want to pull your hair out after reading a passage for half an hour." also applies to your evidence. In fact, your evidence exceeds the 1,000 word limit, and should be truncated to ensure your point comes across, and is not deleted entirely.

Anyways, you have also told me, Jmh649, and probably Literaturegeek, to avoid contact with you as well (I think it was the other way around for Jmh649, so, you're not off the hook... actually, reading scuro's talk history, yes you are...). What do all these people have in common? They disagree with your viewpoint.

Scuro victimizes himself, and thinks he is completely innocent
. Althought LG provided like, 10 references, somehow, this is groundless. 3RR is still 3RR, weather you use Undo or Rollback. He has been blocked twice for 3RR violations.

Response to Scuro, in regards to his Response to Me
"Literaturegeek removed good unsourced material" can you explain to me how there can be "Good unsourced material" in an article that is officially classified as controversial? And, look, ownership pretty much described your activity on ADHD related articles. You may want to see File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg and BRD misuse... We're done arguing. This needs to end now.

Response to Scuro, in regards to his Response to Jmh649
Woa that's a lot of evidence... Look, about half of those were 3rr violations on the both of you.

And, for the thousandth time, Social Construct theory is not fringe. It may be wrong (which is what I believe) but it is not fringe. Same with those other theories; if they were fringe, they would not be on Wikipedia in the first place.

Please, stop extending things that have already been discussed. Just because you disagree, does not mean that you can just say that it was never discussed.

Many of Scuro's entries seem just part of a monologue.
Many or most of Scuro's talk page entries seem like parts of one long monologue or lecture to the rest of us, often having no logical connection to what comes before or after. 

Scuro is interested in process, not content.
Scuro admits to being interested in processes rather than content.
 * November 2008: "While ADHD is a topic that interests me, it is not why three contributors filed this rfc. The rfc is about how the ADHD page has become dysfunctional (...) I can envision a process where content ends up receiving more time then process." (NB! diff corrected 30 May 09 by Hordaland.)
 * April 2009 on Talk, ADHD controversies: "Frankly I don't care about the article anymore. What I care about is process that is not being followed..."

Scuro complains of "page ownership" & "lawlessness", avoids specifics.
One of Scuro's tactics for avoidance of discussing specific content issues, is to use "page ownership" as a magic word. Here her/his POV tag had been removed, as s/he hadn't started any discussion of specifics of POV. And here (middle paragraph) s/he claims to present specifics, but they are anything but specific. 

In connection with complaints of page ownership, a climate of lawlessness is mentioned by Scuro. S/he is the only one who sees any lawlessness, outside of her/his constant disruption/misuse of talk pages. Another instance: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAttention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder&diff=286870783&oldid=286867018 For administrators watching this page, it's about time something was done. Why must a lawlessnes environment be endured for months on end...] We do agree, at the least, that "it's about time something was done."

Scuro wants to keep new editors off the page(s).
Scuro has repeatedly said that one should not want any "new" editors, that is extra eyes, to involve themselves before article and talk page conflicts have been resolved. S/he seems committed to this opinion. Others respond that new eyes can only help. I cannot follow Scuro’s thinking on this.
 * Until the process of consensus building is respected, it is a waste of time to nominate this article. (for MCOTW.)
 * Why bring others into a process that is not working?
 * Why on earth would you invite the whole community onto a page when things have broken down to the point where...
 * Do not waste anyone's time with this article until the process of consensus is firmly established once more.

Scuro misunderstands what an article about controversy should include.
Other editors have tried to convince Scuro that a controversy article necessarily will use one-sided sources to support the one and the other side of a controversy. S/he says that such sources cannot be used, as they are "biased". , 

Concern with self
I think that the above diffs show that Scuro is more concerned with her/his position than with writing an encyclopedia.

Delaying
I don't know if ArbCom's members usually follow a case's talk pages as well as the formal pages. In this case, please note the threads begun by Scuro here: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD.

This sort of argumentation is typical. It makes one feel that some sort of action is right around the corner. - Hordaland (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Scuro's response to Hordaland
Looking forward to your evidence and some assurance that you will be able to participate in Wikipedia's processes and not just talk about them. - Hordaland (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, I'm fairly new on these articles, a half a year.  I came wanting to get something in there about sleep disorders in children all-too-often being mis-diagnosed as ADHD, as explained in my entry on ADHD-Talk 18:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC). There may have gone weeks before I even discovered the controversies article. And yes, I tried to be fair and reasonable as I saw two "sides" not listening to each other.
 * 2) I haven't seen your "most every edit you post gets pulled down off the page" situation; it must date to more than a half a year ago.  (Excepting the tags/no tags war, about which I don't give a hoot.)
 * 3) APOLOGIES !! for providing a diff which was off by 10 minutes or so.  The November diff I offered earlier was a few minutes later changed by you to this, which includes all parts of the quote.  Sorry 'bout my sloppy work which must have made it look like I was quoting you very wrongly, and thanks for not getting all huffy about it, as you reasonably could have done.
 * 4) The differences of opinion about the 'suffer' citation is a content issue; I should probably not have brought it up here.
 * 5) You seem to agree that the "page ownership" & "lawlessness" bits do need addressing here.
 * 6) You’re right, "what an article about controversy should include" is clearly a content issue.  Sorry again.

Evidence presented by Literaturegeek
Scuro's disruption is severe, intolerable and stretches back years. Below is my evidence.

Deletes referenced material
Deletes or distorts referenced material.,, , , , , ,,. Deletes referenced material and distorts a ref which says 2 years to make it say 5 years.. An example of adding inaccurate original research., distorts refs by inserting his POV (original research),. Claims review article is a "minority opinion" and moves it from the lead and also deletes referenced material. Keeps deleting it, claiming that editors must find "better sources" than review articles (secondary sources), but news sources are apparently "excellent" secondary sources. Deleting a section which scuro had already reduced to a "fringe" theory in the article text.

Editing warring with administrator Jfdwolff when Jfdwolf just wanted refs. See article history for edit war with Jdwolff over scuro's unrefed or distorted material.. Almost the entire talk page on disease mongering is a battle with Jdwolf who similar to Doc James just wanted to defend the article. Scuro was misrepresenting refs or adding uncited data. Please scroll down this article talk page Talk:Disease_mongering.

Repeatedly adding tags for frivolous reasons
Adding tags,,,. Insists on concensus which usually involves his POV challenging high quality sources., ,,, , , , ,. Attempt to have the controversies article deleted (I have heard that he was for some time pushing for deletion of this article).,,,, Scuro is a big fan of adding tags to articles but does so based on his POV often disputing high quality sources like the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

Ironically deletes tag for the reasons we dispute scuro adding tags.

Scuro's ownership but accusing oponents of ownership
Drives editors away.,,, , , , , , , Low quality news media sources being moved from main body of article to the article lead and the deletion of high quality sources. Tried to intimidate me away from article by sending a 3 revert edit war template after a single revert. This was my first day of meeting scuro. Here he files a frivilous ownership charge against Doc James. Continues to distort facts and influence outcome of arbcom. Manipulative often playing the victim role. User_talk:Scuro This can even deceive administrators and make admins turn on their fellow admins.

Has accused even Abd, who has ADHD and takes medication for ADHD of "ownership" and "control"., but yet he insists on using talk pages before referenced content is allowed to be added.,

Disruptive behaviour not limited to ADHD articles
Caused major disruption (WP:DISRUPT) with nonsensical arguments filling up almost entire page in a very short period of time.Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)/Archive_3. Common tactic as shown in above reliable sources talk page link is to wear down opponents with seemingly circular unintellgent debates or using his own POV to challenge sources but yet here, shows good intellect and good knowledge of scientific sources and good ability to form an intelligent argument for his POV, User_talk:Scuro/Archive_1.

Willing to fight for months on end over small issues. Quote from here, User_talk:Scuro/Archive_1, Scolaire said aftering warning about edit warring "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."

Warned of repeated major controversial edits being disguised as minor edits. User_talk:Scuro/Archive_1, here is an example.. Disruption and drama caused on electroconvulsive therapy article with similar accusations made about behaviour his which lead to Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-05-01_Electroconvulsive_therapy mediation which failed to resolve the dispute seemingly. Destroying evidence related to ArbCom case request page, after Jreadings commented on his userpage.ADHD Complaints about editing behaviour on psychiatry page.User_talk:Scuro/Archive_1. Edit history shows Scuro practically lives on talk pages. Special:Contributions/Scuro

Edit warring, User_talk:Scuro, User_talk:Scuro. Never accepts that they are wrong. Example how it is impossible how to work alongside scuro.User_talk:Scuro.

Warned about similar behaviour on Ron Paul (a libertarian politician in the USA) pages that he has displayed on psychiatry pages.User_talk:Scuro. I worry if he is only blocked from a handful of articles he will simply switch focus and disrupt other wiki articles and projects.

This article is almost a perfect discription of scuro, Disruptive_editing. It also gives a very good explaination of how scuro has been able to evade administration action as well as admin attention for so long Disruptive_editing.

One common complaint about scuro has been his vigerous attempts to remove any reference to reliable sources or mainstream orgs discussing controversy.. Does not like any reference to a controversy. This diff looks like a minor issue but it forms a wider pattern.

Verification of disruptive behaviour
There are now four people with differing POVs from myself and Doc James who have found scuro to be disruptive to the wiki project. The four people are Abd, Unionhawk, Sifaka and Hordaland. Both unionhawk and Abd have ADHD by their own admissions on talk pages but all these people edit productively.

Also J Readings and Admin Nja247 found mediating with scuro a very trying ordeal.

The only people who seemed to side with scuro were admins who formed a POV not from editing alongside scuro but simply by reviewing the fall out of a dispute on admin noticeboard and formed incorrect assumptions.

See these refs, and

Main complaint endless forum debates on talk pages
This major disruption is impossible to prove with diffs. Using talk pages as huge forums with debates, drama, irrelevant POV discussions. This archive is half a megabyte of mostly paranoid obsessive ramblings about conspiracies of scientologists and antipsychiatrists, useless drama, fighting he said she said, you said I said school yard stuff.Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies/Archive_1. More here Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies.

Asked for citations for his disruptive prolonged forum debates on talk pages.,, , Citations are never produced, just useless time wasting disruptive debates.

Evidence presented by Sifaka
I missed the initial RFA. I am a regular contributor to articles in the scope of ADHD. I chose to participate in this arbitration process because it has become increasingly difficult to communicate on the talk pages about improving the ADHD articles; a large part I feel is due to protracted discussions which Scuro fosters, inappropriate talk page sections, and section hijacking (like this). Also, I am unhappy about the especially lengthy and too-oft-recurring discussion on non-content related items like Non-Neutral Point of View tags. These edits elaborate on my opinion of the matter.

It is difficult to get Scuro to cooperate with other editors' requests
On the ADHD controversies page, there was a dispute over whether to add a Non-Neutral Point of View tag to the page. Several editors removed an n-NPOV tag, but it was repeatedly replaced by Scuro, in many cases without the expected justification. This was discussed at length on the article's talk page. My observations are as follows:
 * One of the most common reasons by reverting editors for removing the tag was a lack of justification. Scuro continued to readd the n-NPOV tag although editors requested that Scuro should identify specific problematic sections if s/he desired to readd the n-NPOV tag. In most cases, the tag re-appeared without sufficient justification.


 * 1) revert (Reverted to revision 285705412 by 70.60.109.42; Please demonstrate on talk page how undue weight is given to a POV before flagging.. (TW))
 * 2) revert (Reverted to revision 286149664 by Literaturegeek; Template says see discussion on talk page about dispute. There is no discussion of what is disputed or why. If I get reverted then RfC.. (TW))
 * 3) revert (Justification is not significant as per talk)
 * 4) revert (This is my second revert)
 * 5) eventual removal (removed tag) after a lot of edits in between
 * 6) removal (Person who added this tag has been blocked for edit warring. Removing.)


 * Other editors and I repeatedly asked that Scuro provide justification for the n-NPOV tag. Editors implicitly implied or explicitly requested they wanted Scuro to give specific examples demonstrating where NPOV policy was violated.


 * 1) Litgeek removes the tag because justification for it was not outlined
 * 2) Litgeek requests justification for the tag
 * 3) Litgeek complains that Scuro has not given any justification for the n-nPOV tag
 * 4) Sifaka indirectly requests justification for a tag by proposing a consensus building method
 * 5) Sifaka requests specific justification for the tag. (Setting up a "template" for N-NPOV violation reporting was not my best idea but it was a well intentioned attempt to solicit specific justification. My goal was to encourage constructive dialogue about content rather than continue to argue about tags)
 * 6) Sifaka requests specific examples to justify the tag and complains about Scuro reopening the n-NPOV tag request repeatedly without appropriate justification
 * 7) Nja247 requests specifics examples to justify the tag
 * 8) Sifaka requests specifics examples to justify the tag


 * Scuro was vague or general in responding to requests for specific instances of policy violations that would justify an n-NPOV tag; however, Scuro did name some specifics in a few instances. When Scuro did so, other editors sought to deal with the named issues.


 * 1) Scuro does not give a specific reason to add a tag other than the article has become a coatrack
 * 2) Scuro talks about general problems, and gives one specific instance of potential reliable source guideline violation regarding one of the sources
 * 3) Scuro expresses an opinion on the source mentioned previously
 * 4) Scuro talks about other issues generally
 * 5) Scuro expresses dissatisfaction with Doc James's finding of additional citations and desires to move onto other issues but fails to describe what those other issues are.
 * 6) Scuro doesn't post clear specifics despite being asked
 * 7) Scuro posts specifics after being asked twice in this section and somewhere between four to six times in other sections
 * 8) Scuro mentions "many problems" but doesn't clarify what these are. Also Scuro creates a whole separate section to discuss alleged policy violations in the introduction despite there already being a dedicated section to the improvement of the introduction above already.

A great deal of typing netted very little improvement in overall article quality
On ADHD Controversy talk, ~17600 words is the total length of sections which Scuro started or were created in response to Scuro between April 26th and May 12th. In all, Scuro brought up two specific points (1) a single source which may have failed RS guidelines which alternate supplementary sources were found (2) the intro made it unclear what level of controversy existed within various circles (i.e. medical professionals, lay people, etc) which was rewritten for balance. Both of these issues were addressed but at the cost of a lot of inefficient and unnecessarily heated discussion about non-content items like the n-NPOV tag.

Scuro starts new sections on talk pages which are not content related
Most of these seem to involve user conduct or state some bit of policy without providing a context. These sections are pointless because they are not directed towards improving the content of the article and encourage inappropriate user conduct debate which is better played out on one of the mediation boards or on talk pages. 

Scuro being disruptive to prove a point?
One of my concerns is that the n-NPOV tag was being misused as a warning to readers because an editor doesn't like some of the content in an article. I believe that Scuro was using the tag in this manner because even though several editors asked for Scuro to explain his/her reasoning by giving specific examples of policy violations, Scuro continued to discuss them only vaguely or generally despite repeated entreaties. My opinion is that if Scuro wanted to fix the content, Scuro should have ignored the whole tag business and edited the article or started being specific about instances of violations on the talk page. If Scuro was concerned that page ownership issues would have prevented him/her from being able to remedy the problems directly, Scuro should have sought an RFC, an ANI, or other method of dispute resolution. During these recent events on the ADHD controversy page, Scuro took no such action to help him/herself. Also other editors demonstrated responsiveness to Scuro's ideas on the talk page as shown above. The fact that Scuro did not try to help him/herself or work constructively with the other editors who clearly were willing to listen to and try to address content issues leads me to believe that Scuro's "isolation" from other editors is self imposed and that Scuro was being disruptive to illustrate a point.

Reply to Scuro
In this edit Scuro wrote:
 * This case is about a band of like minded editors who are unwilling to seek consensus or mediate with a single editor who holds a different viewpoint. The band holds minority or possibly even fringe opinion on a few important issues such as whether ADHD is fake (Social Construct theory).

I contribute from a mainstream perspective: ADHD is a genuine disorder. I have avoided stating my editing perspective previously because I would rather my edits be judged on their content alone rather than on any perceived opinion of the editor's beliefs or "agenda" behind them.

A statement by Scuro
The nature of the dispute is that all those who filled this arbitration seek sanctions against me. None in this group have met the criteria of trying to resolve differences, which is required in filing an arbitration request. A sticking point is that I choose to edit rarely on the article page, and instead, contribute on the talk page. Another sticking point is that I don't provide citations on demand. It was not always like this, Doc James has "page blocked" me for over six months. After taking a 2 month break from wikipedia, I was dismayed and frustrated that behaviours pre-rfc, had not changed even though Doc James had committed to change. At that point I edit warred to keep a POV tag on the page and got a 3R warning. Most of these editors hold minority viewpoint, and probably fringe viewpoint on a few important issues such as whether ADHD is fake Social construct theory of ADHD. I hold the medical mainstream viewpoint and our relationship for the most part is antagonistic and falls into predictable patterns of behaviour. I am quite willing to work within the parameters of Wikipedia and allow fringe viewpoint on Wikipedia. In fact, I started the Social construct theory of ADHD article. Undue weight is an important unresolved issue.

These contributors choose not to resolve differences on my talk page, or by any other manner of mediation. Consent for change for what goes on the page never happens with Doc James, even when the issue is simple and the focus is narrow (see threads on the "suffer" citation ). So far at arbitration, the proposed remedies on the workshop page were proposed by myself, and to date, no other party has earnestly sought resolution of any issue. No proposal, or offer has been made that doesn't include a sanction. The same holds true for the topic ban proposal. Conversely, most of the filing parties started making sanction proposals before evidence against their specific complaints had ever been presented. Previous to arbitration, I had only responded with evidence to one single accusation so they had no idea what sort of evidence I would provide. Their goal for me has always been acceptance of guilt, sanctions, and then talk.

The case has been allowed to go forward because I chose not to truly defend myself at the "free for all" topic ban proposal. I also felt that it was improper that this case was accepted by arbitration with no history of mediation, and again, chose not to defend myself at the arbitration proposal. The other major reason that this case has gone forward is because the evidence is surprisingly inconsistent and has not been contested until now. There are: valid points, faulty assumptions where editors jump to conclusions, and evidence which assumes motive to demonstrate that a normal wikipedian editing function is an act of bad faith. There is are misconceptions present that are either based on ignorance or something akin to fanaticism. Here are the specific complaints from their evidence pages:


 * rarely use references
 * removes references
 * adds unreferenced material
 * adds too many tags
 * changed a reference's meaning
 * makes unsupported accusations
 * states mediation is "wrong"
 * doesn't read Abd's posts
 * inability to accept mediation
 * black and white response to people
 * deals with editors rather then content
 * sees nothing wrong with his behaviour
 * believes that consensus can not be reached without him
 * rejects outside input
 * claims ownership because his edits "get reversed".
 * abuses 3R templates
 * many of his arguments are not logically valid
 * claims no editor has attempted to seek consensus with him
 * doesn't get the point
 * evades scrutiny
 * extremely talented at making sure the conversation goes nowhere at all
 * makes scientology accusations
 * only edits certain pages
 * still doesn't listen
 * adamantly thinks he is right
 * "is a little hypocricical"
 * extending things that were already discussed
 * many of his posts are like a lecture to the rest of us
 * is interested in process instead of content
 * avoids content discussion by claiming page ownership
 * wants to keep new editors off the page
 * misunderstands what controversy means
 * more concerned with his POV then writing an encyclopedia
 * delays
 * adds inaccurate research
 * Claims review article is a "minority opinion"
 * moves material from the lead
 * claims editors must find better sources
 * deletes sections
 * edit wars
 * wants to delete articles
 * deletes tags
 * drives editors away
 * intimidates
 * manipulative
 * plays the victim
 * distorts facts to deceive administrators
 * makes administrators turn on fellow administrators
 * tries to influence the outcome of arbitration
 * insists on using talk page before reference material is added
 * wears down opponents with seemingly circular unintelligent debates
 * disguising major edits as minor edits
 * destroys evidence
 * makes "paranoid obsessive ramblings"
 * practically lives on talk pages
 * evades administrative action
 * only administrators who don't know him, agree with him
 * it is difficult to get him to follow requests
 * makes inappropriate talk page sections
 * section hijacking
 * fosters too much typing
 * inappropriate user conduct debate in talk
 * displays hostility
 * has made his talk page off limits to find resolution
 * lack of care in responses
 * rejects attempts to be helpful
 * uncivil

This is a laundry list of issues and for some the goal appears to be to post plenty of complaints so the impression of guilt by volume is created. There were too many individual complaints to respond to each one. Please ask specifically about any issue, if it appears there is serious wrongdoing. The filing parties have no cohesive platform. Nja247 has insisted that I am a disruptive editor, but the major party of this dispute was attempting to file a content rfc as late as April 28th. 2009. At that time he stated,"This is a content RFC not a behavior RFC". Actions speak louder then words. Only one editor has purposefully stopped editing the article when there was conflict, and then taken a lengthy break when things broke down. Only one editor has earnestly sought a true wikipedian consensus, both on the talk page and through these sanction processes. Only one editor has followed the proper channels and filed both an rfc and mediation cabal.

Thanks to the sleuthing of LiteratureGeek through 5000 edits, every bit of dirty laundry is up for all to see. What I see in myself is an editor who has self corrected a fair bit of his behaviour. Initially we have a spirited editor, not unlike UnionHawk, who was passionate but at times over the top, and at times engaged in negative behaviours. These behaviours have all been tempered. Why then have I been the focus of a: Wikiquette alert, a reopening of Wikiquette alert, a topic ban proposal, and arbitration proposal, and finally arbitration? When I look at my behaviour and then I look at the behaviour of those filing these proposals, I judge that their collective behaviour is no better then mine, and often much worse. .

LiteratureGeek was very upset when a single 3R warning was posted on her talk page. Imagine is she had gone through what I did in the space of 15 days. Administrators and others have had serious reservations about each process being filed. Whatever wiki circuit breakers there are, they did not stop this case from getting to arbitration. I did consider quitting wikipedia all together. The stress generated here is the equivalent of a negative life event. While the process has been sold as a positive experience, pragmatically speaking, so far it is anything but positive. These sanction processes are highly negative affairs, where guilt is often assumed quickly, and the pack mentally rules. One has to go through extraordinary lengths to fight off first impressions. You know this is a negative process when an administrator uses a plea for an experienced eye, (“I would like to appeal this 3r block and would like the advice of other contributors about my reasoning...”), as evidence against you at an arbitration proposal, "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)". In the future anyone wanting to start a new sanction process against me will have this new lengthy history to build upon, and if past patterns continue, I'm sure will use these wiki processes unfairly. I’ve wasted 50 days of my life defending myself strenuously through all these processes. This all could have been dealt with in a med cab if all the parties were willing. My hope is that something like this never happens to anyone else.

Those who filed this arbitration are still seeking sanctions, even after seeing all of the newly presented evidence that has been posted. They have all had the opportunity to offer an olive branch, to concede certain points, but none of them have. They have also had the opportunity to drop out of these processes at anytime, as Doc James did at his own med cab and rfc. I have never had an option here but to be railroaded, and then pilloried (terms are not mine) at arbitration. I have not been allowed the opportunity to grow with the input of mediation, that any other editor on wikipedia takes for granted. I hope wikipedia use's this case as a prime example of what happens when processes are not followed. Consensus shouldn't trump everything because when it does, there is always the danger that processes will be abused. This is my statement, it is not evidence. I have responded to other’s evidence and requests below. I have been, and always will be, open to negotiation. We could have solved this about 3 processes ago, perhaps even with earnestness on the talk page. But instead, contributors were given what they wanted every step of the way.

A response to Abd
Abd is an intelligent and prolific writer who devotes what seems to be an incredible amount of time to wikipedia. He could be a very positive force for Wiki. Abd has a lengthy "history" with me and at times it's been very heated. Our paths hadn't crossed for sometime until recently. He edits rarely on the ADHD page anymore. My hope was that he had finally taken to heart my request for no further contact; "Abd, I appreciate it if you avoided all contact with me. Thanks". My viewpoint was clear, after all there was a whole thread on the issue which he participated in. Even his mentor was troubled by my stance; "I do have a concern that you do not read Abd comments? He has provided me a lot of useful feedback". Still, it came as no surprise that Abd was the only contributor who made an effort to be involved on my talk page for my first 3R. Nja cited my rejection to Abd's offer of assistance, as a major reason to file the twice rejected Wikiquette alert.

Perhaps my several requests to "avoid all contact" had slipped his mind after a few months of time. If so, Abd should have let Nja know of my stance and our lengthy history on the ADHD pages, after I once again made it clear that I wanted no contact with him. He should have alerted Nja that he was not a neutral party at all. The quick chain of events that brought us to Arb may have stopped after the first filing of the Wikiquette. Worse, Abd "stirred the pot" with each process along the way, and he did so in disingenuous way. Abd was the one who originally stated that I drove Ss06470, the self published Psychiatrist, off of Wikipedia. This notion was picked up by several of the other involved parties. Abd made no mention that Ss06470 had already been rebuked for being abusive by an administrator two months before I joined Wikipedia. or that Ss06470 was abusive to others as one can see in his comments about another contributor: "You are pathetic" ... [] "Oh right. Your illness interferes with this capacity to concentrate on things you don't like." [] He wasn't any nicer to me, ( ''"No Scuro You are not powerful. Nor clever. Instead of holding forth why don't you take a look at the Frontline program and quietly consider what is being presented there? Then you can decide if your opponents are getting smoked. Most of the "experts" on that show emphasized how little we really know. You might also take a look at Benedict Carey's articles in the New York Times on this subject. Then if you have any integrity at all you will change your tone and perhaps go away and allow those with considered ideas to discuss the issues. But then I'm sure you won't. You wouldn't be Scuro if you gave any thought to your opinions". ) As the facts show, Ss06470 received two more warnings from a different administrator [] [] and after that he didn't edit for 11 weeks. His edits tailed off significantly after the third administrative warning. So, Abd's contention that I drove him off Wikipedia is shaky at best. Hordaland was honest enough to state the obvious once the facts were presented, "Yeah, I've checked out some of that before. No angel, the good doctor"''. What was very disturbing at the time was that Abd was mentoring Ss06470 on how to be abusive in talk in a more acceptable way: Abd believes that he was only instructing him on how to apologize, but really, of the infinite examples that Abd could have used, why did he choose these examples?
 * "Great Ned.  You belong here guarding this site from the likes of me and them.     Oh is that insulting?  My apologies.  Where are you Scuro?  Or have you taken on a few user names Whoops My apologies 
 *  Scuro has evil intent, obviously in the pay of the drug companies [I apologize, I was having difficulty understanding his motives]".

I have been asked several times why did I choose to seek to avoid all contact with Abd? It's an unusual step to take with a consensus format. It wasn't because Abd was overly abusive, but as Nja stated about his writing style, "as you know it's important to keep on task. When too much text is added which is not directly about the reportee then things become confusing and very hard to read". His lengthy screeds were usually peppered with personal comments and judgments, and it became very annoying to spend lots of time trying to make sense of what was written. Occasionally sprinkle a few insults and fabrications on top, and you want to pull your hair out after reading a passage for half an hour. I had asked him many times to focus on content. Abd's behaviour at times makes absolutely no sense to me. Knowing that I wanted no contact with him, what purpose does this post have, "Sure, Scuro, you make your bed, you are welcome to lie in it, and I won't join you. This edit will be immediately reverted, and I will make no more edits to your Talk page unless I forget the request, which can happen, as I apparently did here; if I consider a warning necessary, I will use other avenues for WP:DR or behavioral reporting as appropriate. Good luck", and then instantly revert it? --scuro (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A response to Unionhawk
I am encouraged that you reached out to me on the talk page even though we hold opposite viewpoints on many of the issues discussed. To do so you would have had to believe that something of what I have said could be plausibly true. Hold onto that. You may have already sensed that things are not the way they have been made out to be. Every story has two sides, and the other side is now being expressed. I've held back because I think Wikipedia has thrown it's principles out the window by allowing this arb case to go forward so quickly. But, in the end truth holds an obligation which I am acting upon.

I'll respond briefly to your points:

"Scuro rejects outside opinion"-In the example given, Literaturegeek removed good unsourced material. The question was asked twice on the talk page why we couldn't just put a citation tag on it. No one responded. My first revert was a block revert of multiple edits. My follow up reverts were of specific and individual passages that I thought were worthy of inclusion. I was attempting to be helpful by taking the time to isolate each passage. For that I got a 3R.

"Scuro makes false claims and accusations"-I think I have made a very strong case of ownership. I should have probably not posted a 3R on Literaturegeeks first revert. I think I apologized for that. If I didn't, LiteratureGeek, looking back at that, I'm sorry for what I did. I was frustrated when virtually all of my edits being reverted, and I reacted in the wrong way.

"Scuro's arguments consist mostly of logical fallacies"-When you call the community in to clean up an article, isn't it logical that, "POV issues and page ownership issues should be dealt with first"? As I said, "why bring others into a process that is not working"? Really with the time constraint of a week, it would turn into a dramafest. Editors would take sides, perhaps an rfc would be filed, and content would not be a clear focus. Then after the week was over the article could still need work. Why put good people through that?

"Scuro is more concerned with discussing issues rather than fixing them"-When you are virtually page blocked, you turn to reasoning.

"Scuro claims that nobody has attempted to seek consensus with him"-The examples that you give is where other editors and MYSELF have attempted mediation with Doc James. Or, it is a sanction process, or it is not related to the ADHD pages.

"Probably unhelpful comment regarding Scuro" Yes, your opinion here is very unhelpful and judgmental....accuracy would be another concern. Ditto on your "Response to Sifaka".

"Digging for the positives"-If that is you digging for the positives, I'd hate to see you dig for the negatives. ;) Yes, I've focused in on a narrow band of interest but I have been branching out to other topics which are compelling to me. I'm not going to write about something just so that I have a breadth of interests. As for comments pulled up from who knows when, I'm not perfect UH. You should be able to relate to that. You've sent several barbed comments my way recently. Should you be held accountable to that 1 or 2 years later? I think personally I've grown a lot on here.

"Response to Scuro"-Lets leave content issues for now. As for listening, a number of the questions I post on talk go unanswered, or I have to state that I will edit the page unless someone responds. Then I may get a response.

I hope I answered all of your questions.

A response to Hordaland
Hordaland, you come to these pages well after the initial confrontations. Looking at your edit history, your first edit was on Oct 26/2008 where you added a period. We have had little personal interaction on the talk pages or article pages. Your reasonableness to date is appreciated, especially when you try to bring contributors together as you recently did in talk. You also have agreed with my viewpoints as you did here last winter (this is also appreciated), "There's a discussion just now, How to handle an uncited statement. Delete or citation-needed template?, at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Opinions vary, of course, and to a degree depend upon the situation. IMO, [CitationNeeded] tags are generally a good thing. The project is a work-in-progress, and there's no shame in that".

Below are responces to each of your concerns:

"Many of Scuro's entries seem just part of a monologue" - Yes, your example quotes a plea for reasonableness. When most every edit you post gets pulled down off the page you will find that you no longer focus on content but plea for help from other contributors. By the way, no one responded to that plea.

"Scuro is interested in process, not content" - Here is your quote of my words(?) "While ADHD is a topic that interests me, it is not why three contributors filed this rfc. The rfc is about how the ADHD page has become dysfunctional (...) I can envision a process where content ends up receiving more time then process." First let me state that the second section of the quote is not in the differential. By linking them are you not doing OR? The first section of the quote comes from Doc James RFC. What is being explained is that the RFC is not a content RFC but a behaviour RFC. An outsider thought the RFC was a content RFC so the passage sets the record straight. I have no clue where the second section of the quote comes from so I will not comment on it.

You have also misunderstood the second quote which you posted. Let me also give you the context since you were not part of this RFC. Previous to my post Literaturegeek wrote this, "I know that you are very much in favour of promoting the view that opposition to ADHD and amphetamine drugs in children is mostly a scientology conspiracy". In my response I question, if she could read my mind. Then I questioned the validity of the "suffer" citation. Why was this citation used when it is the transcript from a lecture? It was never published and the citation supposedly supports a scientific observation. More of my thoughts on this issue here. , 

"Scuro complains of "page ownership" & "lawlessness", avoids specifics" - Check my reply to Doc James, I think a strong case has been made. Your examples show my frustration with virtually all of my edits getting pulled off the page.

"Scuro misunderstands what an article about controversy should include" - That is a content issue which should be discussed elsewhere. I'm sure we could come to quick agreement about controversy and fringe opinion with a little guidance.

"Concern with self" - Yes I am concerned that I am page blocked. Is that not a major valid concern for any editor?

"Delaying" - Yes I did have concerns that none of the criteria was met to hold this case. I've questioned that all along but no one shares my concerns. Left no option, I am finally responding to the "evidence" presented. My concerns grow all the more as I finally look at each specific piece of evidence presented against me.

I hope I have addressed all of your concerns.

A response to Literaturegeek
This is an arbitration case which supposedly showcases conduct issues of a highly significant nature. Since all the filing parties never attempted any other recognized means to resolve issues, you would expect the quality of the evidence to be of the highest standard. Instead, below you will find that the evidence varies significantly in quality. The preponderance of evidence given should also be directly related to user experiences in editing the pages in question. Scuro had no involvement with Literturegeek until mid April 2009, yet most of Literaturegeek's presented evidence comes from a period before that time frame and some of it reaches back beyond 2 years. It appears that the fair bit of sleuthing was done to "make hay". The evidence given has little or no context offered to the reader and often Literaturegeek incorrectly infers wrongdoing. For example:
 * 1) in the first piece of evidence offered, the differential states, "deleted sentence, and moved reference to first sentence in the last paragraph. Both sentences basically says the same thing. Trimming section due to undue weight issues see talk". A bloated article is trimmed. Sentences and citations that are basically the same were merged. Literaturegeek uses this as a piece of evidence of unnecessarily deleting citations.
 * 2) a citation and passage was removed because the author had no scientific background with PET scans. Scientists critique scientists on medical evidence. Critics, without the proper medical expertise with PET scans, are fringe critics.
 * 3) the term "use" is changed to "abuse". "Withdrawal from chronic abuse of amphetamines can include..." Anyone using stimulant medication uses medication in a "chronic" manner. It is only with the abuse of amphetamines that serious withdrawal symptoms occur.
 * 4) Literaturegeek states no citations were given on the disease mongering page, yet they were.
 * 5) Literaturegeek accuses Scuro of, "destroying evidence related to ArbCom case request page". His user page was altered and LG believes that this is destroying evidence.
 * 6) This citation supposedly shows tags challenging a "high quality source". Instead all we have here is a column end command.

Responding and giving context to each of the 65 citations given by Literaturegeek would require far more space then allowed. In most cases she is trying to "make hay" out very little, or assumes wrongdoing when there is none. The edits were done in good faith. It is normal in Wikipeida that editors add citations and have citations removed. It is normal that editors change the wording of an article. This is called the editing process. Literaturegeek, why is it a wikipedian transgression to:
 * advocate for the merging of two articles?
 * seek consensus?
 * add tags when warranted?
 * using talk to determine if a citation is of high quality before "allowing" it to be added to the page?

Literaturegeek uses terms freely to create bias in the mind of the reader. She states tags added are "frivolous", yet none were added without consideration and forethought. Literature geek calls the filing of an rfc against Doc James as "frivolous" even though an administrator signed on to that rfc and that process requires several preliminary steps. She states that Scuro "drives" users away, yet Both Ss06470 and Shadowcreator are highly abusive contributors who left because administrators were acting upon their behaviour. Ss06470's record of abusiveness is demonstrated in my response to Abd. The other contributor, Shadowcreator is no longer a user. Could Shadowcreator have been banned from all of wikipedia for being abusive? On the other hand, the three other parties who filed an rfc complaint against Doc James no longer edit the ADHD page with any regularity, if at all.

In presenting her evidence Literaturegeek is being abusive and uncivil. She states, "This archive is half a megabyte of mostly paranoid obsessive ramblings about conspiracies of scientologists and antipsychiatrists, useless drama, fighting.." or "Manipulative often playing the victim role. This can even deceive administrators and make admins turn on their fellow admins". Other parties in this arbitration are also abusive.

Finally, I stand by my words, there is ownership on the ADHD pages. At Doc James Med Cab contributor Vaoverland stated, ''"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. At best, it is hard to informally mediate, partially due to the sophisticated and technical subject matter. (I.E. just one reference he has provided is almost 400 pages long and differs greatly from many current references). Only restraint by other users (myself included) has kept this from situation from deteriorating into an edit war"''.

A response to Doc James/Jmh649
Ownership comments made by Doc James preceding the examples below:
 * ''"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".

The last 17 edits of Scuro on the ADHD page The following 17 edits are Scuro's last 17 edits on the ADHD article page in reverse chronological order. These edits were from Nov 2008-May 2009. During that time only one of Scuro's edits has not been reverted. The edit that was allowed to stand was the changing of italic text words into plain text words. Doc James reverted 13 of the 17 edits, LiteratureGeek had 2 reverts, 79.66.18.147 1 revert, and 1 edit was allowed to stand.


 * 17)| Scuro-add-inline synthesis tag ("oops")


 * n)| 79.66.18.147-revert-remove synthesis tag(no comment in edit summary)


 * 16)| Scuro-add-inline POV tag ("adding tag")


 * m)| Doc James-revert-removes inline tag ("We chaged it to the past tense as agreed upon in the cabal. Please discuss there".)


 * 15)| Scuro-remove-2 fringe outside links removed ("wiki links to fringe viewpoint - see talk (please to do not revert without discussion it talk (WP:BRD)")


 * l)| Doc James-revert-add two external links ("Added links")


 * 14)| Scuro-add-inline POV tag ("yes lets discuss BEFORE you strip tags")


 * k)| Doc James-revert-removes inline tag ("We discussed")


 * 13)| Scuro-add-inline POV tag("This issue was brought up subsection entitled:"define the controversy and who are the adherents of the controversy". It was not resolved. Now we have a double unilateral strip of a tag".)


 * j)| Doc James-revert-removes inline tag ("We changed it to the passed tense however...")


 * 12)| Scuro-add-citation("added citation")


 * i)| Doc James-removes Scuro's citation and adds new citation ("added properly formated ref")


 * 11)| Scuro-add-inline POV tag("adding tag")


 * h)| Doc James-revert-removes inline tag("Removed warring by Scuro. THIS WAS DISCUSSED")


 * 10)| Scuro-add- Article Consensus and Article POV tag added ("tags removed without consenus)")


 * g)| Doc James-revert-removes consensus tag ("no discussion therefore removed")


 * 9)| Scuro-add-consensus tag (" still see the need to come to consensus. Issues still need to be dealt with...there has been no forward progress recently.")


 * f)| Doc James-revert-POV tag and Consensus tag removed ("Removed as per discussion)")


 * 8)| Scuro-delete-info (" denier theories don't belong on the adhd page. They belong on the controversy page")


 * e)| Doc James-revert-add info ("Undid revision 289400133 by Scuro ")


 * 7)| Scuro-m-altered italics to plain text (" normalizing titles")


 * 6)| Scuro-revert-multiple Literaturegeek edit reverted which includes deleted text ("ADHD is a controversial and contentious issue. Mass edits should be avoided and consensus should be gotten on the talk pages so that all editors have a chance to give input.")


 * d| LiteratureGeek-Revert-removes 3 separate passages of info ("Please quit trying to wear down your opponents by making editing difficult. Data is cited".)


 * 5)| Scuro-revert-add deleted text ("interesting theory. Wouldn't a citation request tag be better then simply removing it without talk?")
 * 4)| Scuro-revert-add deleted text ("why was this removed? It explains the mechanisms of how drugs work at the neural level.")
 * 3)| Scuro-revert-add deleted text ("LG, I respectfully ask that if you contest information that you put a citation tag instead of removing unilaterally")


 * c)| LiteratureGeek-Revert-removes 3 separate passages of info ("Article size is 100 kb, too big, needs shortening, can't justify uncited data remaining in an article over the size limit.. (TW)")


 * 2)| Scuro-add-section POV tag (" fringe theories are being kept on the page by reverts with no explanation for it's inclusion in talk. See removing social construct theory of ADHD")
 * 1)| Scuro-add-deleted info ("returning material that was removed because this section had become "too long")


 * b)| Doc James-revert-deletes passage ("needs refs")
 * a)| Doc James-revert-section POV tag deleted ("added refs")

Explanation of what was going on at the time

m) Doc James removes inline tag. He alone believes that consensus was reached at his Med Cab, and that inline tags are not to be used on article pages, Yet, two contributors specifically state that they disagree with his stance on consensus.   More on the "Practical matters -stripped tags and edit waring", thread.

l) Doc James reverts deletion of 2 fringe outside links(anti-psychiatry and Biopsychiatry controversy). I can see no mention of this in talk at that time.

k) see "m" for an explanation. The tag is placed after the word, "clinicians". The debate is if they are still actively involved in the controversy in a "minority opinion" way. I can see no mention of this in talk at that time.

j) The issue of the reference is brought up in the "Define the Controversy" thread. Near the end of the thread it is mentioned that the sentence will be changed. No one responds, so instead a tag is placed on the sentence. The tag is removed four times. Scuro asks, "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"?  No one responds.

i) Doc James removes a citation found by Scuro. See "Poor references" Doc James argues that he has consensus on Aug. 9th and removes the tag on August 11. No consensus is reached. More on what Doc James will allow on the page.(see reference)

h) Doc James believes the inline tag issue was solved at the med cab. See "m" for further details.

g) Doc James states, "no discussion therefore removed". Could he mean that since there was no prior discussion, a consensus tag can't be added?

f) Doc James removes both a POV tag and a Consensus tag based on "discussion". The discussion occurred a few weeks earlier. Doc James had opened a thread entitled "NPOV", where he states, "I think this article has reached a NPOV. Should we now remove the tags"? . Scuro responds, "nope, the editing process and consensus building are dysfunctional. That needs to be fixed first". No further discussion on the topic of the tags is made on this thread.

e) Possible fringe theory is reverted back on the page. Two threads   are started on this topic. The only "prominent adherent" suggested is Thomas Szasz, an anti-psychiatrist who helped co-founded an organization with Scientlogy to "combat Psychiatry". Both threads still have open unanswered questions.

b, c, and d)) LiteratureGeek removed multiple paragraphed sized sections of unsourced information because the article had become "too long" and they are not cited. Scuro reverts all of the edits. LG reverts back. Scuro returns separate paragraph sections, individually back onto the page. One passage describes the mechanisms of how ADHD drugs work at the neural level. All three edits are all reverted back and then Scuro gets a 3R. In talk a thread was started entitled, "removing material because the section is too "long".  It is suggested that a citation tag be used first before info is simply taken off the page.  That point is made twice, no one responds.

a) A POV section tag was added because the point was made that "The Social Construct theory" (ADHD is fake) is a fringe theory and should be on the controversies article. There was no discussion in talk about the removal of the tag before the POV section was removed.

Doc James made the following comments at his RFC - Reverts "a"-"g" occur after his commitments.


 * 1) seek consensus
 * 2) leaving tags on top of the page until all are happy
 * 3) and reverting only once..


 * Doc James imparting bias with contributors new to the page, on their talk page


 * On LiteratureGeek's talk page - Hey LG I dealt with Scuro for many months. Had no success. One day he just left and now unfortunately he is back. There just does not seem to be any insight. Anyway would like to say I appreciate the help. Cheers []


 * On Hordaland's talk page - Hey Hordaland One issue I have found is that Scuro interprets what ever is written as in his favor and ignores anything he does not agree with. Anyway thanks for sticking in there. []


 * On Sportsmand's talk page -  Yes this debate has been going on for over a year now. Scuro has driven away editors ( a consult psychiatrist who has published on ADHD ). He attempted to drive me away and attempted to delete the page on ADHD controveries. The only group that he recognized as having concerns about ADHD was scientology. All his comments are directed against me even though he does not state this. :-) Things got a little out of hand but nothing was ever resolved as Scuro has never provided any resource to support his POV. He just tries to remove references provided by others. He has now however been block from editing for a bit do to edit warring. []


 * On Nja247's talk page - Sure this is it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies#RfC I am not sure If I have set it up right either? Ss06470 is a psychiatrist who has published articles about ADHD by the way. Scuro has filled a number of RfC against the editors listed above including myself. I was uncivil in the past however am now trying to work deal with the issues using proper wiki channels. ( To set the record straight, I've never filled any RFC against anyone but Doc James. Also, the two contributors he mentions both are abusive, and Doc James first interaction with myself was Sept. 2008 )

possible reason behind the major impasse?
Could the impasse be personal?

"One of the editors have insulted my University aswell as a number of my friends. They all make numerous subtle insults of me". Doc James is referring to the University of British Columbia and I believe he is referring to staff working at the "Therapeutics Initiative". While it was clear that the source was not a good medical article source, James went and sought a further opinion at WikiProject Medicine anyways. They also agreed it wasn't a good source. The citation is still in the article under the Pharmacological treatment section. As with other questionable sources, Doc James props up this source with other sources rather then removing it.

A response to Sifaka
Sifaka, I'd like to offer my apologies. I've lumped you in the with rest, based on careless assumption. Looking at your edits, you seem to be a reasonable methodical editor. Your approach is civil. For the most part you follow wiki procedure, and your biases seem to be kept in check. Looking back over the histories I've noticed that we had little actual conflict except on my first 3R posting of tags. Interestingly, even though we were both heated about that issue, our exchanges were done in a civil manner. In a previous time when the talk page was more harmonious, we freely exchanged ideas about Thom Hartmann and alternative theories.   We also seemed to be on the same side of an issue on the quality of the "suffer" citation. Our difference there was that you thought a possibly substandard citation could stay on the page if it was supported by other citations.

Looking at your evidence, about 2/3rds of it focuses on tags and my behaviour during my first 3R warning. I'd like to believe that this was the only willful time when I did not following policy. You are right in some of the assertions that you were making at the time. At that particular moment in time I did not explain myself well, or act as I should have. In my defense I will tell you that when someone is truly frustrated they don't always process information fully nor do they act as they should. Remember, at that time I was being virtually page blocked for over six months. . We had gone through a lengthy med cab plus an rfc where there was no resolution, and commitments that had been made were quickly broken. My first posting of a POV tag on April 26th was pulled down by LiteratureGeek in 49 minutes. LG posted advice to Doc James six minutes later, "I would just revert unless good reasons for disputing neutrality are given on talk pages". To which Doc James replies 12 minutes later, "The tagging over everyone an editor does not agree with does not add to wikipedia and verges on disruptive editing.". The next revert of the tag took 26 minutes, and we also had a third deletion that day. Are these the words and actions of those who are trying to resolve differences? The other three tag deletes all were done in short order, none of the tags stood for a full day. The POV tag clearly states, "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". Resolve issues in talk? The environment on the talk page was such that Literaturegeek removed my talk posts, and Doc James supported LG's notion that a talk post can be deleted when he said, "agree with LG unless you start siting sources what you write should be deleted". It was only you who respected the tag and gave good reasons why it shouldn't stay on the page. You also "telegraphed" a time limit of 24 hours before it was to be taken down. You never had the chance to do so.

The thing is I had made made my point in talk, specifically on the "Coatrack/biased article" thread on both pages. I had used the single example of the "suffer" citation to show bias on the article. The "suffer" citation is a "denier" paper based totally on lecture notes. It was never published in a scientific or medical journal, and clearly is not scholarly in any regard. It should have never been used to support scientifically observed facts. That contributors defend such a citation to the ninth degree demonstrates bias. Doc James's solution was to prop up the "suffer" citation with other "better" citations. He has propped up other poor citations before. 

Contributors have wanted me to point out everything that I saw wrong with the article and provide citations for each point. That would have been a huge waste of time given the circumstances. My approach was validated by the astronomical amount of typing generated with regard to the single "suffer" citation, and I said as much back then,"I am discussing content, specifically citation 12, but I did bring up a number of generalized observed shortcomings of the article. I choose to keep the discussion in a very narrow band so that criticisms should also be narrowly focused on one specific piece of content. That a number of members have trouble focusing on one specific piece of content justifies the approach". If one poor citation for an observable scientific fact sparked: so much disagreement, lack of consensus, and "lots of typing"....how would we ever get anywhere when there were multiple and more complex issues?

As to the complaint about the large amount of typing, you count 17,000 words over 17 days. Much of that wasn't my typing but regardless, have you counted the number of words in the topic ban proposal. In 3 days about 21,000 words were created, had it gone on for another 14 days at that pace, it would have generated over 100,000 words. I think all three examples above demonstrate frustration.

I do take issue with the way you frame things on your evidence page. Calling my post "section hijacking", when in fact, the post alerted the community that things were dysfunctional on the ADHD pages, and that they should stay away so that they don't waste their time. Why on earth would you invite the whole community onto a page when things have broken down to the point where one editor has been page blocked off the page for 6 months by another active contributor? Clean your house before you invite guests over.

It is true that I only brought up two points at that time for the tag justification. The second point about undue weight is very significant, and I have clearly stated it here in this thread, Coatrack, Undue Weight Issues, "these questions are relevant: *1. What is the controversy? *2. What is the majority and minority viewpoint about the controversy? *3. Have both viewpoints been stated clearly with due weight according to wiki standards? To repeat from what was said on the controversies page, it is not at all clear what the overreaching controversy is, if in fact there is one, and who holds minority and majority viewpoint. What should really be done is that the article should be tagged POV until this sorted out. The action is warranted because of the very slow pace of consensus building". On a similar thread on the controversies page.  we see contributor Sportsmand agreeing with me fully about tags and the page ownership problems he was having, "I actually asserted the POV tag back when I "re-started" the controversy debate Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder. So I am in favour of that. Regardless, it would probably be better if we could all agree that we need some time to debate the content and structure of (all) the articles. The POV tag would just reflect the true state of disagreement among us. I mean, we obviously have disagreed for... some time..." Sportsmand also questions weighting issues and also questions the repeated mantra that citations are always needed every time someone who disagrees with their POV, challenges something on the page. "You state "I would like to see citations showing that the controversy is undue weight". I agree with Scuro. This is not a question of citations but a question of the value and weight of the sources we use. This is not a matter of one citation versus another. Even if you have a valid citation does not mean that it gets any mention in WP at all. I have this impression that you may think that every citation has the same value and relevance. LG, I have in this talk page and the ADHD talk page clearly asked you questions concerning the value and weight of material you have introduced or supports. Until now I have not gotten any answers to this at all. I would really appreciate it if you would care to give me a response". 

Sifaka, it looks like your hope is that once "obstacles" are removed, editing can go full throttle. What I am telling you is that this page has never had true consensus and until it does, there will be reams of "typing" on talk. The page will also continue to change constantly, as it always has...until editors seek true wikipedian consensus. It is only when we as a community can come together that real progress will be achieved. When you see me revert the deletion of an anti-psychiatry citation, you will know we have reached that point. That will happen because we will all know that only in consenting to the other contributors viewpoints and finding true consensus, will such actions happen. Sifaka, I am extending an olive branch out to you. Hopefully I have demonstrated that I have always had the best interest of wikipedia in mind, you are right to question my behaviour, but I am asking you to come to the arb workshop page and try to find consensus with me and any other contributor who is willing. You might be surprised at what can be achieved if all are acting in good faith.

A response to JReadings
Although JReadings has not joined this arbitration, he did provide evidence at the proposal. I thought it important to respond.

Back before you briefly appeared on the page, I posted a thread entitled, "The Coatrack Issue for the Controversies article". What had happened to the article was that it had become a Coatrack, as it has once again turned into. From my understanding of the issues at that time, I looked at each major heading and indicated in talk what I thought to be controversial. By controversial I mean there is a well established majority and minority opinion position on a topic. For example there was a "concerns about the impact of labeling" section. It was my believe that this was not controversial because pretty well everyone believes there that labeling has negative attributes. What I attempted to do at the time was move all the noncontroversial good stuff to the main article, create separate pages for fringe opinion like the Social Construct theory( with a link from the main article), and eliminate stuff that really was way out there fringe, like ADHD medication causes brain damage. The hope was to merge the controversies article and include the significant controversies into the main article. Doc James at first also wanted to do this but then changed his mind. The reorganization was attempted but was never completed.

JReading, explain how you believe this behaviour is worthy of going directly to arbitration, with no prior mediation steps taken?

I looked at the thread that you posted as evidence entitled, "Poor sources make for a poor article: include academic and medical journals". 

JReading, explain how my behaviour on this thread is worthy of going directly to arbitration, with no prior mediation steps taken? These two pieces of evidence are the only evidence that you provided. Beyond that, you are subjectively interpreting information.

Back to controversies. At that time Doc James found many references and my viewpoint about controversy altered. I spell out exactly what I thought at the time on the, "Issues" thread. That thread is about controversy and fringe issues. Doc James also altered my understanding of black box warnings. --scuro (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A response to WhatamIdoing
Although WhatamIdoing has not joined this arbitration, he did provide evidence at the proposal. I thought it important to respond.

''"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"''. - That's a mouthful. No diffs?

The "Theraputics Initiative" review was examined at Doc James med cab and it was found to be lacking as a citation for a bio-med article. At that point I began to question if med/scientific reviews should have a set of criteria to determine quality. A thread was started at "Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) I suggest people open that thread instead of relying on WhatamIdoing's subjective interpretation of what happened there. The "women he's e-mailing", is a university professor of statistics and also a researcher in the field of vision. I've know her for several years and we discuss scientific issues now and again. She took an interest in Wikipedia at the time, and wanted to know how wikipedia determined what is the best source for a scientific article. She participated in the thread and added valuable insight. At the time her interest, and my frustration of seeing few criteria there is on how to determine the quality of a scientific review, dovetailed together. Did I belabor my point? Sure.

"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". - Again, where is the diff so we can see the "multi-page fit"?

"His complaints about this simple compliment turned up on my user talk page" - You see the following quote of yours as a compliment, "Every editor at WP:MEDRS is both intelligent and experienced and apparently every editor except yourself is familiar with this convention." My apologies if I misinterpreted the meaning of what you said.

"where, by the way, he was busily edit warring to prevent the addition of a simple arbitrary break into an extremely long discussion" - Yes, I didn't know anything about page breaks at the time but I don't remember an edit war over the issue.

"his efforts to ban a user from participating in the RFC/U" - I wouldn't call the following quote as "attempting to ban someone", "Abd, I'd kindly ask you also to avoid this Rfc". It is a polite request. 

WhatIamdoing, you base your call for a "complete topic ban", on the evidence presented above?!?

A response to Nja247
I don't know if this is the time and place to make detailed observations on an administrator. While certain facts are presented in the evidence section, I disagree with a number of the points you made in your interpretation of events. I also believe that my case was "pushed" to the topic ban proposal. I don't believe I have access to original filings of sanction processes filed against me. I would need to look at that evidence first. I have asked how to see that information on the talk page, but received no response.

responses to responses

 * A response to Sifaka and his, "...disruptive to prove a point", comment

If you see obvious bias, isn't a tag warranted? You suggest that I should have edited the page myself. Take a close look at my second 3R and what I was doing. That 3R was for not adding content, but simply for putting good content (that I didn't create) back on the page. One passage described the mechanisms of how drugs work. LiteratureGeek had removed multiple sections at once. If I had simply done a group revert again I wouldn't have gotten my second 3R. Instead I got a 3R because I took the time to revert each separate passage in the hope that the merits of each could be debated and treated separately. If they were reverting to keep good unsourced info off the page, why do you think they would allow new material on? Virtually nothing that I have added in over 6 months has stuck to the page...and there were skirmishes before then.

You then suggest that I should have filed an rfc. We had just been through an rfc and med cab. Why would Doc James not drop out of a new rfc? That process only works when all parties are motivated to resolve issues. Also, have you ever filed an rfc? These are not processes that one can simply file in a few minutes. You need support and proof to file them. You also have to demonstrate attempts at mediation. It looked like those who had given support through the initial two processes had wiki- process fatigue. Arbitration would have been the next logical step but those who initially filed were no longer editing the page after my two month break. Furthermore, Doc James had made concrete commitments at his rfc. What you saw was my frustration that he was able to continue to "page block" any edit of mine off the page. I did already agree with you that I could have been more responsive. That moment was not me at my best.

I do take issue with the point that you made, "that other editors demonstrated responsiveness to Scuro's ideas on the talk page". No one has responded to my undue weight issues in the intro beyond Sportsmand who agreed with me. . These issues were brought up before I got my first 3R and still are not resolved. It was the major issue I had with the article. The issues with the "suffer" denier citation were not fully addressed either. The author of the transcribed lecture shouldn't have been used as a source for an observable scientific fact. He is after all a political scientist and the citation was of the transcribed notes of a lecture. It was not a scientific paper. At first Doc James and others defended the citation, then he propped it up with other citations. Finally Doc James removed the citation but added a citation of the book put out by the same author. When Doc James was asked about the appropriateness of this citation, he replied that he had ordered the book and would reply once he received the book and had read it.

While some have complained that I have used talk to bring up non-content issues like page ownership, lets turn this one on it's head. Can content be dealt with in an unbiased way when someone is page blocked off the page? Will the one editor continue to offer their best effort in such an environment? The editors of the article are supposed to be a community. To me community speaks of responsibility and support when needed. There were several pleas made for assistance and no one responded. Instead we heard complaining about what a talk page is for, and a vote to finalize consensus. It was only once we got to discussion of sanctions that I heard that contributors were willing to protect my edits. What stopped any of you from earnestly questioning me on my talk page, at anytime, to see if there was any merit to what I said?


 * responses to jhm649's responses

To prove your point that I am a tendentious editor, you used the parameter of the 500 most recent edits. You failed to mention that my posts are often edited right on wikipedia. So one final page post may actually have several transitionary edits( like this one does ). Contributor Fabrictramp pointed this out during the topic ban proposal. Also, during this time I went through a topic ban proposal, a WA, and the reopening of a WA. These are processes where responses in talk are typical, and often necessary. This was also during a time when I have been effectively "page blocked" of the ADHD articles by you. Isn't it a normal response for someone to avoid posting on the article if they don't want to get into an edit war, because of page ownership? Yet even so, your assertion that I have only added one reference within that time frame is false. Here are three references added during this time which added to the one you counted would make four references. . These references would also mean that your Verifiability claim doesn't hold water. Looking at your next accusation of Incivility, all of your examples are from last September or later. Some go back over two years. I would need only a few of your comments within the last 9 months to dwarf all your examples of my incivility.

I'm very surprised that in the workshop area, you have avoided negotiation, and even avoiding responding to simple questions. This is where the focus should be after evidence has been presented. We had made progress at the rfc and we should have picked it up from there.


 * comment on Doc James's parameters for evidence

From Doc James's recent edit to his evidence page,  he comments in his edit summary, "bolded to emphasis that his couple edits to other areas were not included". Am I to assume that Doc James counted my last 500 edits to the ADHD article and talk page only? This at a time when he was "page blocking" me off the page? This at a time when I chose to rarely edit the page because of page ownership? In choosing 500 edits, instead of say a 1000, he misses the time period pre "17 edits" when I was editing the page extensively. Furthermore, he backed out of his rfc during this time frame and broke the commitments he made then. Doc James has never successfully filed any mediation or negotiation process with me. He avoids negotiation at his arbitration. He has never made any attempts to resolve differences on my talk page. You would think that because of the lack of commitment to any form of meditation or negotiation, that the evidence would be exceptionally robust.


 * responses to Unionhawk's responses

"can you explain to me how there can be "Good unsourced material" - Sure, if it's a "given", then it doesn't need to be sourced, unless someone insists that it be sourced. We are at the point now where I can't even make basic assertions without a call for citations, but it doesn't work that way on a normal page. With true wikipedian consensus, you might even allow somethings that you disagree with, to "slide", because is the grand scheme of things the point isn't that important. Consensus is about give and take and finding broad agreement.

Content issues - I believe arbitration is generally for behaviour issues and content issues should be dealt with elsewhere. Still, I'd be glad to negotiate on the workshop page about specific issues. Perhaps that would get the ball rolling.


 * response to Abd's issue with my spelling correction and projected intent

You've lost me. How are the following links related?
 * i)the spelling correction of June 13th.
 * ii)the elimination of word on Nov 22nd.
 * iii)...and myself not signing Doc James rfc, with your projected intent of avoiding scrutiny?

Evidence presented by Nja247
As I haven't been directly involved in the ADHD dispute, I would like to point to my statement made in the request for arbitration. The statement details my experience from the last month in trying to resolve the ongoing disruption.

Though, below is a very brief summary of the three stages of my involvement (ie 1st block, WQA, and then ANI) and also some notes from observations made during the evidential process.

My involvment generally (again, my statement is more expansive)
 * 1) I responded to a edit war report at WP:AN3 on 28 Apr.  I decided not to block (diff). However, the dispute continued, which is why the user was blocked for 24h for continued edit warring the following day. I urged the user on their talk page to take some time to cool off and I suggested a break (here).
 * 2) After continued disruption and after I saw Scuro's response on his talk page to what I thought to be a helpful offer/suggestion by user:abd that I opened the WQA. At the WQA 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. I also made the request on Scuro's talk page (here).
 * 3) When Scuro received a second block by another admin for 3RR/edit war I raised the topic ban idea at ANI (here). 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 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 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.

Note on Abd's evidence Abd linked to a reply by Scuro to me today. Honestly, I was surprised by Scuro's response, especially considering how the topic was about trying to resolve things. Thus as he requested this has been 'brought up' here, and apparently his talk page is off-limits for working towards resolutions.

Note on Scuro's hostility on his talk page In addition to the example noted directly above, Scuro has continued to display hostility in his responses on his talk page. Note his generally lack of care in his response to this valid post. I'd personally find it difficult to work with someone who shows the current level of tension, especially considering the fact that they need to resolve a long running and circular dispute. Thus, I strongly stand behind my proposed outcome made at the workshop.

Scuro turns content disputes into personal conflict
I had long experience with Scuro in this way. Attempts to be helpful were rejected as if they were hostile. And, today, I see one more example. I'm not exercised to see Scuro banned or blocked, which is why I'm not going over ancient history to pull up evidence, I'd prefer to see him work as a useful editor, even if he's an SPA with strong opinions, but it seems that he's rejected more than my own efforts to help, I see it today:. This is typical and unsurprising for him. If he is to continue as an editor, he needs guidance, probably a mentor, or else continued conflict is probably inevitable. --Abd (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that Scuro has presented some discussion of his relationship with me. It would be tedious to go over it in detail to show how the presentation is warped; however, I will point to one specific thing that could, if not looked at carefully, be misunderstood. He didn't diff it, so I will:. I was explaining to the psychiatrist how to use strikeout when one realizes that one has said something improper. As part of that, I gave him a made-up example, deliberately exaggerated:


 * Scuro has evil intent, obviously in the pay of the drug companies [I apologize, I was having difficulty understanding his motives]

I.e., the example was of a hypothetical statement clearly a total AGF failure, and one which could result in a block, struck, and with an apology that explains the problem. Dr. Sobo did abuse the advice, (this is the other example of strike-out insult that Scuro shows), and was warned, and I confirmed the warning with.

That Scuro presents this story here as if it impeached my behavior is characteristic.

As to my self-reverted response to his request not to post on his Talk page, I sometimes do that to acknowledge the request and to make a final statement. It shows clearly that I read the request and can be held responsible for it, but it leaves nothing behind for the editor to clean up. I have, on occasion, forgotten that there was such a request from the past, and I do not necessarily refrain from formal warnings where such warnings are a prerequisite for further process, such as a 3RR action. What I don't do is to continue to post to Talk pages of users when requested to stop (beyond that kind of final note), and absent that kind of necessity to warn or notify. I've, myself, requested other users to "now please go away," and have never considered this a reason to complain about a formal warning from such a user or other necessary notice from such a user.

Notice that Scuro's request was accompanied with incivility, Abd, you are the master of innuendo framing. I could only suspect that he interpreted some accusation in and then assumed I had crafted it. It would probably be the phrase that DR works, "if you are reasonable." Which is a fact, and which at the same time points to the fact that if one is not reasonable, it doesn't work (to one's own satisfaction). (DR works even if the other side is unreasonable, it simply needs escalation.) The comment in context was clearly friendly and supportive. It points to solution in two ways: process, and personal attention to being reasonable. Both are necessary. --Abd (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Today I noticed that Scuro made a spelling correction to an incident I'd forgotten, with. He had filed an RfC, Requests for comment/jmh649 (he never signed it, which took me aback at first), on jmh649, a party to this arbitration, and, apparently, didn't want someone with knowledge of his history to comment. I posted a few times to the talk page, sometimes briefly, sometimes in detail; the discussion there might be a good background for understanding this situation. --Abd (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Basic info not covered on other pages
For the convenance of the committee and other interested parties


 * ADHD as a subject covers several articles including:
 * Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
 * History of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
 * Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies
 * Adult attention-deficit disorder
 * Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder management
 * ADHD predominantly inattentive
 * Hunter vs. farmer theory
 * Social construct theory of ADHD
 * Low arousal theory

Past issues
(in progress)
 * User:Ss06470 (Dr. Simon Sobo)-

Dr. Sobo was a medical professional who was having a hard time fitting in to Wikipedia. In particular he had a hard time understanding why he wasn't allowed to reference his self published writings related to ADHD, and why he wasn't allowed to insult other Wikipedians. 

I tried, as frustrated as I was with him, to extend a hand and help him despite our different views on ADHD. 

While I am sympathetic to new editors, Dr. Sobo only had himself to blame for his initial hardships with Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 07:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(in progress)
 * User:Clockback (Peter Hitchens)-

User:Jmh649 (Doc James)
(in progress)

I don't think I can word it any better than this


 * "I have been following the ADHD pages for a while, having stopped editing them because it became unpleasant for anyone not anti-psych/anti-pharm to edit these pages. I am another professional bullied off the page but by JMH not Scuro. My take on it, is that although Scuro is misguided in fighting small points that should probably be let go, it has been very difficult for him/her to do anything without being reverted, hence the move to the talk pages and the frustration. A topic ban will not solve the problems.--Vannin (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)"

Other examples of problematic behavior:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder/Archive_7#Scuro
 * , ,

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.