Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Since mediation or negotiation has never been tried with Scuro, a request of all parties to solve our differences
1) Since we have skipped all the steps to get to Arb. including any attempt to contact me on my talk page to resolve differences, I offer to unconditionally be involved in any mediation or negotiation process that the arbitrators see fit. This may save us all an incredible amount of time and possible sanctions. I most respectfully ask that the fellow parties of this Arb case also consider unconditionally offering to join any negotiation or mediation process that arbitrators see fit. --scuro (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * All right this is enough. I personally have contacted you on your talk page 3 times. There have been 2 mediation cabal cases, one 2 RfCs, and an 2 ANI notices. Not to mention the uncountable discussions on the article talk page(s). We have done every step in the mediation process. You have exhausted the patience of me, and probably every other editor on the article(s). This will only waste an incredible amount of time. If you had just listened in the first place (which you have not), we would not be in this mess.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 01:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Unionhawk. We have tried many steps.  All of use but Scuro edit other articles, Scuro only edits ADHD articles.  I think this process has consumed enough time.  Now we need a solution.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Many of us have contacted you on your talk page. Here is LG and I both asking you for references.   Many contacts previous to that aswell.  Here is your reply to abd offer to help  .  If you look thru this users page you will see many more examples.  -- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't consider a warning about citations an "earnest" attempt to resolve differences.
 * Abd is an interesting case and I commented specifically about this situation in my response to him on the evidence page . Soon after your arrival he no longer was an active part of the community. He did show up for both your med cab and rfc. Then he popped in after my first 3R warning. He states he had completely forgetten about my request to avoid all contact. In your cited quote from my talk page he states, "I will assist you in seeking consensus if you ask".
 * I'm not sure how to call this one". The arbitration team can judge this one if it is an important enough issue for them. I think by far the bigger issue is where are any attempt at negotiation now? I've specifically called to your attention to this point. It might be time to answer some of the open questions left on this page, that or build a very strong case why negotiation is impossible. --User:Scuro|scuro]] (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Many forms of DR have been tried (as shown in the opening statement made by a completely uninvolved party). Further a review of the user's talk page will show links to each of these processes, along with my personal requests for sources and a suggestion to take time to cool off. Further in my compromise to a topic ban I explicitly offered supervised editing to the user, where I promised to actively defend inclusion of any properly cited materials he would provide to me. These examples and sources have never been forthcoming, and I cannot see why the user continues to circulate this statement that no attempts to resolve have been tried. Nja 247 08:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * response to Nja

As for the several attempts at dispute resolution, the only two mediation processes of the group were filled against Doc James. The other processes were attempts at general sanctions or not true mediation or negotiation processes. If all of parties believe that MY conduct is worthy of an Arb, the responsibility to reconcile differences would be their responsibility. Nja247, in your offer to be helpful, [] you stated, "...I am willing to compromise rather than continue with an outright long term topic ban, which as of now seems as though it's got community support. The compromise would entail you admitting to making mistakes and agreeing to a shorter term ban on things related to ADHD". Your "compromise" sought an admission of guilt. Mediation doesn't start with the mediator telling you that you are guilty, asking for apologies, and proposing a shorter topic ban.--scuro (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, news flash: all parties do believe your conduct is worthy of arb, except you.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail14:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mediation is between different parties not against one party. The mediation between you and I count as dispute resolution of the current issues at hand.  Scuro and I have gone thru dispute mediation a number of times.  Obviously by the fact that we are here it has not worked. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't been involved in this conflict since November, (losing my job caused me to lose interest in this, and for a while, just about everything else), but I do recall that first RfC quite clearly and it didn't take long before its focus was on you as much as it was on Doc James.--*Kat* (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I for one am not getting involved in any mediation or anything like that as it has already been tried and I believe that you scuro derive some sort of enjoyment out of them hence why you have spent years wasting your own as well as other peoples time having your disruptive endless forum pointless debates on talk pages. You have been having your recreational disruptive debates for years, several avenues have been tried to change your behaviour. There is a saying on the internet, don't feed the troll. I refuse to feed the troll. You have had years of fun disrupting wikipedia. It is a time to put an end to your games scuro.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree... WP:DENY and What is a troll? certainly apply here...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 00:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Doc James, several parties signed onto your Mediation cabal and your RFC, and you dropped out of both. Since everyone faults my behaviour here, it would be your collective responsibility to show attempts at mediation with me, and not mediation attempts for someone else's behaviour.--scuro (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

To set the record straight. I did not drop out of either of those processes and have treated you civilly every since thus living up to what I agreed to. However that was not the underlying issue and is the issue you continue to refuse to address which is your lack of following WP:V. I recently asked again for you to follow WP:V but you continue to side step addressing the real issue at hand.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please set the record straight then. At the med cab the administrator requested everyone to sign on "to content and not the contributor". You signed on and then broke that commitment several times in short order. Then I specifically requested that we all agree to wiki etiquette. You never committed and wanted to only focus on content. At your RFC great progress was being made, issues were being resolved, and we had lined up Xavexgoem to mediate further differences. I had offered to drop the RFC if "things got nailed down". In the end there was no commitment to mediation and you wanted discussion on content back on the ADHD talk pages when a number of issues were still not resolved. The last post on the RFC was mine. The RFC was archived because of lack of activity.--scuro (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We are all asking for references. Impossible to discuss content without them. This is the issue you have not dealt with. And it seems refuse to deal with all threw out the processes we have gone threw.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * On my talk page you laid it all out for everyone to see. The only evidence that you will accept from me is "peer reviewed literature / systematic reviews". I don't know how long it's been since other forms of citations have been acceptable and have not been page blocked off the page by you. In fact, you will see shortly that I have been virtually paged blocked off of the ADHD page for 6 months, and virtually all of the reverts are yours. My point is why bother offering citations when they are never allowed to stand. Furthermore, poor citations of yours are not removed, but rather they are "supported" by better citations. That is a very unlevel playing field.


 * You asked on my talk page, "What I want is for you to agree to provide sources for your opinions". My offer on the talk page still stands, "Then I would ask you stop page blocking my edits. The mediation could be as simple as this". Citations will come once they are respected.--scuro (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Show were once in the last 6 month you added properly referenced text and it was removed or any referenced text for that matter. By the way you need to prove that your citations have been removed before you can state "why bother offering citations when they are never allowed to stand"-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Doc James, you will find edit 12, in my reply to you on the evidence page, was a perfectly good citation which you removed. There was a time before the "17 edits" when I was actively editing the page and offered citations, but many of them were removed. Granted some were replaced by better citations but some were not. In the end it is more the process that is important. Reciprocity has been missing all along...that active and real effort to seek consensus and understanding.


 * I believe the most recent citation that I put up on the article, which still stands, is the National Institute of Neurological Disorders webpage, but that might have been before your time. That was posted about last September. In my reply to you in the evidence portion of this arb, you will find the case that I built for page ownership. So I ask, why should I bother with citations if they are virtually never allowed to stand, and processes are not respected? I've offered so many solutions and "new beginnings" during this whole time. Do you have a way forward?--scuro (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay so you added a web page to a CME course using an unformatted url (http://www.continuingedcourses.net/active/courses/course034.php) I replaced it with a peer reviewed source using the cite template   and this is why you will no longer use references to support your position? The line of text through all of this was never changed.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If it were important to you, I could find diffs of citations of mine that you removed pre "17 edits". Do we not both know that this occured? Do I really need to make the effort to prove that also, or can we move on? And if I made that effort, like I recently did to prove current page ownership,....what then? Would you agree then, not to unilaterally pull down my citations, and to use talk to earnestly seek consensus with me?


 * It was when the good "Continuing Ed" citation was pulled down with no discussion, and after you had made commitments at your rfc, that I said to myself, what is the point of finding citations? That is why I haven't offered a citation since then. Nothing sticks to the page. For what it's worth, I do agree with you that the supported line was never changed after the "Continuing Ed" citation was removed. I haven't looked at your citation so it could be a better reference then the one I posted. I would even allow you the possibility that none of my citations are of any worth....but what you need to do is to make that point each time with each individual citation, before stuff is pulled down. ADHD is a contentious issue and that is what needs to be done for true community consensus on an issue like this. Have good faith that I can be reasoned with, and allow for reciprocity. For example if you pull down all of my citations with no consensus, it's a little disingenuous to fight for the inclusion of all of your references to the 9th degree.


 * I'm asking that we both concede, we both consent,...to give a little when justified, to admit when we are wrong, and to move forward. For instance, it would be a small concession to allow that you did remove citations of mine pre "17 edits".--scuro (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I would appreciate it if you would find diffs supporting my removal of well referenced statements. My replacing a mediocre reference with a better ref as I did above is how one improves Wikipedia.  You have accused me of page ownership many times.  So yes I would now like you to prove that I have indeed been keeping well referenced statements off of the ADHD pages.  Otherwise I would like you to issue an apology and cross out this accusation.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Doc James, we are getting to the heart of the matter here. You have qualified my statement, with the term "well referenced". Do you believe that you can unilaterally remove referenced material and citations if they are of poor quality? What steps do you take if you know that there is at least one editor, sometimes more, who disagrees with this approach? Using your example of the Continuing Ed courses (with all of national associations which approve of the course listed on the top of the first page) you have qualified this as a "mediocre" reference. More mediocre then your "suffer" citation which you defended to the 9th degree? Why is it acceptable that you are the sole judge of a citation's quality? There was no consensus approval on the talk page to remove the Continuing Ed citation. That is, except the consensus you believed you had, and acted upon.


 * Back to the initial point, you have removed pre-"17 edits" citations that I, and probably others posted at the time. I did a quick check a few days ago and I'm certain there is at least one, I'm thinking several. Were you justified in removing other citations unilaterally, because you thought they were also poor citations? Now if you want me to go find ANY citations that you removed I can do so. I can understand that pre-17 edits, rookie mistakes could have been made. We can move on if you admit the mistake and tell us that such actions were a cause that brought us to this arbitration. If that is not an option, then tell me what I am looking for? Am I looking for ANY citation that you removed? Or, are you going to qualify it? If you are going to qualify it, please first explain why it is acceptable that you can be the sole judge of a citation's quality?--scuro (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes that would be great. Find a reference that was published in a peer reviewed journal that I removed and then kept of the page.  So far all you have provided is me replacing one mediocre reference with a better one.  This is what we are supposed to do here by the way.  We are supposed to provide better sources for statements if the one present is poor.
 * This is hardly enough justification for an editor to stop finding high quality references because they "always get removed". You have not in any way justified your actions.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that just my citations were being removed, it's that virtually everything I posted was being removed. Pre-"17 edits", many things were also being removed, I'm not sure to what exact degree, but it was happening. That was when I was actively posting text, citations, and fixing the article. You were doing this not only to me but to other contributors who were posting at the time. An administrator who was a filling party at both your med cab and rfc called that behaviour verging on censorship.
 * Now it seems from what you write, that you have a belief that every review trumps any other source of info. Sportsman said this to LiteratureGeek about reviews, "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". So I ask again, why do you get to determine which citation stays on the page or is removed?--scuro (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That section you gave a link to shows you being requested to provide citations for your position and views. This ArbCom is now turning into a an unproductive forum discussion like the talk pages on ADHD.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  12:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Scuro you said you would provide additional diffs to prove my page ownership. You know were to find what sources are to be used Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles).  We even had a discussion there.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes LiteratureGeek, you are right that this could quickly become a waste of time. So, what can we agree on? Can we agree that I will start providing more citations, when required, if tags are respected on the page as noted by wikipedian policy, and I am no longer "page blocked" off the page? It's a basic offer I have made several times but have had no direct response to. Is this something that you could agree to LiteratureGeek, or any of the other filing parties? If that is not acceptable, suggest another solution.
 * Doc James, my time is short. I don't think I'll have enough time, I still have to give evidence. You were going to explain why you choose what goes on and off the page. Have you given that any thought?--scuro (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Using sources would be fantastic... This is actually the first time I've seen you offer to provide sources, as opposed to defending yourself, but, whatever.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 00:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I do agree. This is the first mention of you even considering to use references / sources.  You have had people offer to defend sources you add.  I to will defend well referenced passages you or for that matter anyone adds.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do provide sources for other articles I edit, and I did so on the ADHD articles, previous "17 edits"/page blocking. My sources don't need "protection", although such actions would have been appreciated in the past. What really needs to happen is that we reach a broad consensus so that we can work together. I've made an offer which would solve two major barriers to smooth article functioning. My commitment to change my editing behaviour will benefit both parties and the page. I'm looking for a commitment to where your behaviour changes, which would also benefit wikipedia. If you don't like my proposal come up with your own and lets see if that can work. Perhaps you see a better starting point for negotiation.--scuro (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are three references chopped out with one Doc James revert. ...and another chop. This was also about the time where you removed the Mayo Clinic citation because you did not like the term "chronic".  At the time you did not like the term "chronic", "developmental", or "neurological" associated with ADHD, and you were stripping citations and removing those terms. Are you still insisting that I don't add references, and that you don't remove my references? ( page ownership)--scuro (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The wording from the first dif is still in the article. The second diff was the removal of a ref that did not work. The ref cited says "generally chronic" which is different than "chronic". We discussed this at length and as greater than 50% do not have ADHD into adulthood the new wording was agreed on. All three of the terms "chronic", "developmental", or "neurological" are still in the lead with it still referenced by NIMDs. So I have no idea how you can say any of this to justify page ownership on my part. Or how you can use this to justify you never having to use references again.

We are asking you to use references. It is because even after we have asked dozens of times in many different ways and forms to use references and due to your ongoing refusal that we have arrived here in an attempt to either get you banned from editing until that time when you wish to actually start contributing to wikipedia or get you edits supervised.

I would be happy to see your edits supervised rather than your outright ban if you could find someone to do this.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This was already tried Doc by Nja and failed. The disruption continued. Scuro turned on Nja for no rational reason and ended up drawing more people into the disruption. A topic ban is the only thing that hasn't been trialed. A topic ban doesn't have to be forever, it can be for 6 months or a year for example.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  15:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Lets see what we can agree to.
 * i)The examples given were 4 examples of references that I posted pre "17 edits". In your last post above you state, "We are asking you to use references". Can we agree that I did provide references pre-"17 edits"?
 * ii)You have continued to ask me to prove page ownership pre-"17 edits". All four references were removed by you at that time. Removing citations without discussion is a form of page ownership. It doesn't matter if the wording of the text is the same. Yes, I agree with you that the three terms are still in the article. I also agree that the NIMDs reference is still on the page, but this citation and the three terms were defended by several editors. Do you see that pulling citations down can be page ownership?
 * iii)I've never stated that I will never use references again. I'm not just not going to waste my time do something that will most likely get removed. When the removal of my posts follows wiki-guidelines, instead of the unilateral removal of posts (virtually always without talk previously), you will see me post again. Is this an area where we can make progress? --scuro (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I will leave further analysis of this to the arb committee. I prefer to edit the encyclopedia.  You have added only one poor quality refs in over 500 edits.  The rest of my evidence is presented and the events are clear if one looks.  Cheers-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A wise answer I think, Doc James. ArbCom has a lot of, plenty, stuff to look at now.  Maybe if we all stop typing, they'll start their work?  - Hordaland (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But Doc James, I have added other references within my last 500 edits. Here are the pre-arbitration references.
 * Can we at least agree that I have made every effort to mediate or negotiate, with any of the filing parties during Arbitration? With that confirmation I could let it rest until a decision has been made.--scuro (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

To the ADHD articles he meant. You did a couple of refs to an al qaida suspect article then in addition to 1 poor source to ADHD article.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  23:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No mediation or negotiation preceded this Arbitration, everything related to this issue must be examined
2) This arbitration case should also examine, in a transparent way, how this case went forward when none of the prior steps required for filing an arbitration case had ever been taken. Several administrators in prior sanction procedures recommended other avenues but these recommendations were not followed. No mediation process was ever undertaken with contributor Scuro. No party has ever attempted to earnestly reconcile differences on the talk pages. Instead of a process of "last resort", a process of "first resort" has been created. This issue was brought up both at the topic ban proposal [] and Arb request filing of Scuro[]. A two tiered wikipedia has now been created. We have every contributor on one tier and then a single contributor on the second tier. That single contributor lives under a unique set of rules with their own implications. This is of concern for all of wikipedia and the following issues should also be examined:
 * that what has happened leaves the door open for future abuse, ie railroading
 * that by avoiding collaboration, wikipedia doesn't allow for contributors to self correct behaviour over time
 * how avoiding process creates an adversarial instead of collaborative environment
 * how lack of prior mediation or negotiation is a major mediating factor in any judgement or ruling

Recommendations should come out of this arbitration to make sure "short circuiting" of all of the rules never happen again.--scuro (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * For the seventeen-thousandth time, every step in mediation has been taken. We're done screwing around, it's time for a solution.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 17:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Many attempts at mediation have been attempted as can be seen by looking through the evidence. They however have all failed.  -- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are differences and roadblocks, and then there is mediation and compromise. There are many points were we have marked differences on the talk page. Often the discussion goes on at length but neither side agrees much with the points made by the other side. This is not an attempt at compromise or mediation. It is also not consensus when a number of editors who often agree with points related to one viewpoint, call consensus by vote. The one time that I can say that I truly saw an attempt at mediation and compromise happened briefly at the end of the rfc. Read on from the thread, "moving forwards". Unfortunately that process was never completed and all the commitments made fell to the wayside as soon as any editing on the page was done. Lets start with the basics, are we on the same page about what mediation and true wikipedian consensus means?
 * Another strategy here would be to recommit with what was already resolved at the rfc and go from there. How about it James? It would be simple to commit to the gains already made.--scuro (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose. I oppose this statement by scuro. Enough evidence has been produced to dispute this claim. I think that multiple editors of various personalities and persuasions have been in a state of permanent mediation officially through wiki channels or else endlessly on article and user talk pages. You are refusing to acknowledge the serious issues of disruption that have been ongoing for years which seemingly no-one has been able to resolve with you. You are trying to make it seem like these issues do not exist.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  01:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have to agree with LG here. It seems that Scuro keeps talking about one side against another, as if this were a content dispute.  The other editors, and new ones who might be inclined to stay, represent all sides and would like to use the article talk pages as they're meant to be used. - Hordaland (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You folks seem to think mediation is debate on the talk page and asking for answers, or voting for consensus amongst yourselves. That's not mediation. A clear example of "one side against the other" is when you take a vote to "resolve" issues. As to disruption, you folks also seem to think that this is a one way street. It certainly wasn't. And now when there is a perfect opportunity to mediate or negotiate, there is no action, only complaints.--scuro (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Lets take this arbcom, reading your responses to allegations, all you do is ignor the evidence and reply with dishonest responses, eg trying to say your edit warring was not really edit warring, falsely stating that you just manually reverted one edit of mine with 3 seperate edits when in reality you did 3 full reverts of my edits, actually 4 or 5 reverts. This is just one example of repeated patterns of behaviour of twisting, denying and falsifying situations for months and years on end. Do you expect us to go into "mediation" when we are met with denials and streaming falsehoods, such a situation is untennable? Infact editors have been editing under these conditions for months or in some cases years with you. I totally oppose any mediation or "consensus" seeking with a clearly and demonstratably prolonged disruptive editor who produces little benefit to the encyclopedia and great harm. I would love for you to change your behaviour and give you yet another chance but even this arbcom shows no change in behaviour as the lies and useless drama continues. When discussing things with you it usually entails having to prove you are being dishonest and disruptive, nevermind finding "consensus" as you keep calling it and then having to address your frivilous topics of discussion and drama.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  17:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What happened to the notion of "good faith" or "let bygones be bygones". Think of your own behaviour: at arbitration, the topic ban, the talk pages, and my talk page. If I am willing to forgive your continuing poor behaviour and move on, why can you not let it go? As to your latest accusations, they are very unfair and I'd be backing them up with diffs.


 * As to editing warring-think about it, it's ten times easier to revert your block revert, then to take each passage out separately and revert them one at a time. Why would I do that? With each revert I also gave an exact summary of why each passage was worth keeping. (see below) Technically it is edit warring, but the intent was anything but to edit war.


 * 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")--scuro (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that I have submitted enough evidence and have no intention of submitting anymore. I could probably submit ten times the amount of evidence if I had the time and the arbcom allowed the space but I do not have the time and have donated enough time to this issue. The main issues with me are not the edit warring but like I say the constant battlefield,WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and disruption,WP:DISRUPT on the articles lasting years which has been immune to every form of mediation and community efforts to resolve.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  18:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Poor attempts at mediation were taken, but not much more. I believe Scuro is correct here, and his concerns about the lack of an earnest attempt to resolve the dispute are valid. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Tags, how they could be used in the future
3) A big issue on the ADHD articles is that tags are often pulled down unilaterally without talk. The POV tag states, "Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". Yet, most tags are pulled witin 24 hours, and it is not uncommon to find tags being pulled down within an hour or so. Even though ADHD has always been a contentious issue, very rarely do contributors "telegraph" their actions before they do them. They often pull tags down without any attempt at seeking consensus, and one editor page blocks any attempt to put a tag on the article. I ask for those who follow such practices, are the actions justified, and secondly, is there any work around possible here?--scuro (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I offered you protection from your tags to not be removed, yet you have not added any. And plus, you can't just slap on a "Needs Consensus" tag, when consensus has already been reached. Consensus is the decision of the community, not by one user alone. -- unsigned comment added by 17:30, 5 June 2009, note by Abd (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)}}
 * Unionhawk? Yes you did request that my tags stay up on the page. That step was most welcome. Hordaland seemed to also agree with your stance. The contributors who have pulled most of my edits down have not responded to your thread, or this thread. If there is real consensus on this issue I would consider posting a tag, but that probably wouldn't happen until after this Arbitration. If I posted a tag again, there would have to be support from others for my right to do so. In the past tags have produced lengthy debate AFTER they were pulled down. Currently, my time is limited anyways.


 * Our definitions of what consensus is must be different. I am assuming you believe a consensus is when a good majority of community believes something. I may be wrong about this but I think a wikipedian consensus is a process where contributors seek broad agreement and a reasonable balance between competing views. I believe that can be done and has yet to be attempted.--scuro (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The comments about leaving tags alone don't apply to tags repetitively asserted without justification or adequate rationale in Talk. Simply that an editor has an opinion contrary to what the editor sees in the article isn't enough to keep a tag, for tags exert a negative effect on reader perception. There must be an active dispute or other issue to be resolved. Bottom line, if there is no support for keeping a tag, other than one editor, and there are multiple editors opposing it, removing the tag is reasonable. That doesn't prevent the editor from exercising rights under dispute resolution, and if the majority has been found to have unfairly repressed dissent, they could be sanctioned for persistent removal of tags. Frequently, Scuro's understanding of Wikipedia process is primitive, and this proposal in the Workshop shows it. Proposals here would be, properly, proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, yet above is an unfocused and general complaint, placed in the Motions and Requests section, with no request or motion presented. Single-purpose accounts are vulnerable to this, so SPAs should normally conduct themselves cooperatively, without vigorously asserting what they think is Wikipedia policy; much of Scuro's disruption has been like this: vigorous assertion of a position based on a misunderstanding of policy and guidelines. That's why I've signed on to the topic ban sanction, because I see no sign of it changing, as shown by participation here, or why, alternatively, Scuro would have to have a mentor who could guide his participation and prevent it from becoming disruptive, occasional gaffes or errors aren't disruptive if fixed quickly.
 * I'm less than thrilled by certain other anti-Scuro comment here, but these are, as well, inexperienced Wikipedians, obviously and for the most part (not Nja247, of course), and, while I've thought of proposing some remedy with regard to them, their contributions are also mostly useful and helpful, and probably addressing the down side isn't worth the effort at this time. They have also asked me for help in the past, and reaching out like that is a good sign. (What if Scuro, instead of edit warring, had asked for help from an experienced editor?) So I certainly hope that they will be kind to newcomers and to other editors who may differ in point of view from them. What we need, most of all, is operating consensus, which requires a civil and welcoming community. --Abd (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy WP:DEMOCRACY. That policy protects the few against the many, and protects majority opinion against minority opinion. My viewpoint is not singular or frivolous either. It was supported at the med cab, the rfc, and most recently on the talk page. See my response to Sifaka. It is certainly true that my understanding of how arbitration works is "primitive". Looking at the instructions though...I think I'm posting in the proper place, "The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions". Would it not be a "remedy" to get past the "tags" issues? And can one solve a problem when the problem isn't defined? If you believe that I have misinterpreted policy, such as wikipedia is not a democracy, by all means enlighten me. As to "what ifs", I can think of many "what ifs" that would have allowed for solutions, and many that would have never allowed this to escalate to this point. We are all guilty to some degree in that regard.--scuro (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. You are still not acknowledging that you flagged articles without saying why you flagged the article. Like you say the tags say "see discussion on talk page" but there was no discussion until after serious disruption and pressure from us you finally came up with a "reason" which then spiralled into drama. I oppose this because you are not acknowledging the major issues we have with you. This is another example of why I think that a topic ban is necessary as you refuse to address the issues we have with your behaviour on talk pages. We try to address issues here on arbcom but then it is like nobody said anything. Dispute resolution is not possible so I can't see how agreement can be made, you just deny everything. As a result the talk pages turn into drama filled discussion forums. Flagging the articles is not the main issue with me but the drama and hours upon hours peer day which result from almost anything and the impossibility of reasoning with you. You wonder why you can't find "consensus" even with people who may share a similar "POV" as you?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  01:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The tag doesn't state, "see discussion on talk page". The tag states, "do not remove until the conflict is resolved".


 * Points were made on the talk page, all the points about undue weight were ignored.(See my response to Sifaka) NOBODY did what the POV tag asks, and that is to try and resolve conflict. Tirades like the one you just made, were a common response. All I can tell you is that I don't think "shutting the door", is the approach that wikipedia wants us to take at this point in time. My door is always open.--scuro (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it does and you know that it does, see Template:POV. This was one of the major discussions and "drama" and I pointed out that tag said "Please see the discussion on the talk page." In this edit Another example why a topic ban is only option as we constantly are faced with lies and disruption. I am sick of having to address lies as well as the disruption.-- Literature geek  |  T@1k?  20:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That includes you too. You're kind of supposed to state what's wrong after you put a tag on, especially POV tags. You can't just expect somebody to start a discussion for you... I mean, seriously, that's not that hard to do.
 * And anyways, I'm pretty much done here. I'm tired of rebuting bupkis arguments. it's time for the ArbCom to work with what they have (which is quite a bit). I'm just tired of all this crap. I'm sorry. I will be extremely happy when this is all over with.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 20:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(←)re Sifaka: Awesome system. That would work beautifully on the main ADHD article to fix a whole host of problems.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 20:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * LG, I guess we are both right and both wrong. It's a two part message. one part states see discussion in talk and the other part states do not remove until the conflict is resolved. The second part of that message gets ignored a lot ;). LiteratureGeek, you pulled that tag down the first two times in under an hour, and twice within the day! That is resolving a dispute? I've stated clearly that I had pointed out what was wrong with the article. Again, see my response to Sifaka. This discussion is a perfect example of what I face on the talk page constantly, lots of barbs thrown my way and plenty of roadblocks towards progress. Either of you two want to discuss how tags could work? This is a workshop, that is the title of this thread.--scuro (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * (I wasn't originally named as an involved party originally so I am posting here.) 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 although several editors including me 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. If Scuro wanted to fix the content, s/he should have ignored the whole tag business and edited the article or started being specific about instances of violations on the talk page.
 * As I posted on in my section of the evidence page, when an n-nPOV tag was posted by Scuro, rarely was there any expected justification in the form of specific instances of policy violations to accompany it. Often when Scuro discussed issues, s/he did so generally and vaguely. The result was that it was unclear what issues needed to be addressed, how they should be fixed, and when it was appropriate to remove the tag. Also, Scuro frequently posted long discussions and asserted that consensus had still not been reached even though discussion about a particular item had de facto ended. This makes it difficult to tell whether a certain issue is actively being debated by editors other than Scuro or being revived.
 * To remedy this, I came up with a good-intentioned system that would have required people who posted an tag on the article to cite specific instances of policy violations so it is clear what needs to be fixed and if it is still an area of active debate. You can see the system here. On a controversial page like Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies, I feel like the burden of the proof should be on the tagger to justify why the tag ought to be there, and that without adequate justification, the tag should be removed. Sifaka   talk  01:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Enforcing wp disrupt
In my opinion the main issues which have brought this issue to arbcom is violation of WP:DISRUPT for years on end by scuro. Simply passing a motion that violation of WP:DISRUPT will lead to a block for a time decided by arbcom will solve the issues. WP:DISRUPT is the only policy that covers the major areas of conern in this case and thus if it is enforced with an arbcom ruling, the ADHD articles can return to being a pleasant place to edit. This is the only way to resolve this.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  08:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

1) Topic ban
As the editor had allowed this disruption to go on for so long, and further had carried the disruption to other parts of the encyclopedia (here). As shown in my statement, the ANI thread for the topic ban closed with 9 clear supports and 3 clear opposes. The user's edits show a single purpose account, and all of my attempts to get the editor to provide sources has failed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support. I reluctantly conclude that the simplest and cleanest solution to this is a topic ban from ADHD and related articles. I see no sign that disruption would not continue. However, if Scuro had an experienced mentor whom he trusted and was willing to accept guidance from, that could be better. --Abd (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I agree a topic ban will allow editing to become more productive.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I would support this.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  11:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * "As the editor had allowed this disruption to go on for so long"
 * Care to be more specific? How long did this go on for? Was this a one dimensional dispute with me totally in the wrong, in which only I, forced the situation to "go on"? Would you like to make any comment on other contributor behaviour, such as page ownership, and how this behaviour may well be the true cause of conflict?


 * "...and further had carried the disruption to other parts of the encyclopedia (here)"
 * Nja, why invite others to your house when it is in disarray? If the mess was worthy of arbitration why would any reasonable person invite the community to the page in the middle of conflict, where one editor hasn't been allowed to edit the page for over 6 months? Would we have not seen the same behaviour by contributors there, that we have seen here? Mainly, an unfair vilification of a single contributor holding majority opinion, to control content.


 * "As shown in my statement, the ANI thread for the topic ban closed with 9 clear supports and 3 clear opposes"
 * Actually I never voted. In going over that proposal there looks to be just as many opposed to the proposal/arbitration. Here are there comments bellow.


 * User Gnangarra
 * "After readin through all of this and looking at the user conduct this dispute is a long way from seeking to have individuals sanctioned, what I suggest is that a request for comment or a request for medation be attempted before even considering a ban. If the editor is violating a the WP:3R then a blocking with esculating time periods should be applied but do it through the Noticeboard and get some independent eyes on the circumstances because it take more than one editor to have 3 reverts".
 * User Jehochman
 * "I see no consensus for implementing a community sanction. I concur with User:Gnangarra's advice above. Content disagreements should be submitted for mediation and user ::conduct can be addressed first by having two Wikipedian's make good faith attempts to address the user. Wikiquette alerts may be a good place to get uninvolved editors to review the dispute. Should that fail, the next step would be user conduct RFC. In the event of serious disruption needing an immediate block, WP:ANI is open for business. This thread should be closed, because I do not see anything further that needs to be done here".
 * User DGG
 * "I have just look through some of the the talk pages involved--to the best of my rememberance I've never done anything substantial with this group of articles. I do not see Scuro as the only or even the principal source of contention. Most of the recent controversy seems to have been about the placement of NPOV tags. This is lame, if there is a NPOV dispute, there is a NPOV dispute, and the effort should instead have gone to improving the article. My advice would be to tolerate him. I see no need for emergency measures".
 * User Vannin
 * "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".
 * User Dream Focus
 * "I read some of the talk page, and don't see as he being the problem. Reading Vannin's comment above, I have to agree, and am oppose to any topic ban".
 * User Duvora
 * "The proposal for a topic ban doesn't actually link to any evidence of disruption or to specific prior dispute resolution attempts. Two of the people who have supported this proposal appear to be in a dispute with Scuro, yet have failed to disclose their involvement at the sanctions discussion. Furthermore, they have been templating Scuro repeatedly at his/her user talk. That's a very odd way to interact with an experienced editor, and it obviously isn't yielding positive results. Also, a review of the article talk page demonstrates that Scuro has not in fact been dominating recent discussion. Perhaps there is legitimate grounds for a sanction on this editor, yet the case has not only not been made for it, but the circumstances superficially resemble a railroading attempt. A topic ban is a serious matter, and if the requesting editors aren't dedicated enough to make reasonable efforts to substantiate a legitimate need for it then the community should never endorse the proposal: sooner or later that yields laziness and actual railroading, which is not acceptable".
 * User Skinwalker
 * "Thank you for the lecture. I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. That aside, your response has completely ignored my concerns about poor editor behavior. I made no comparison between antidepressants and benzodiazepines. I was speaking of an overarching set of tactics that you and others are employing across multiple articles. It seems that you're trying to use AN/I to chase off an editor who disagrees with you".
 * User Ncmvocalist
 * "..it's premature for arbitration in the absence of a conduct RfC, so it's either #1 (which isn't working), or #2 as has been recommended on more than one occasion now. I've seen Nja247 urge the parties to initiate an RfC on more than one occasion, but they still have not tried that means of dispute resolution - I'd like to know why they have not".
 * User KillerChihuahua?!?
 * "I suggest #2, for several reasons. One, why escalate prematurely? Two, there is a good chance this wil be rejected by ArbCom if there is not significant effort to resolve prior to bringing the dispute there. If an Rfc or other DR is unsuccessful, then ArbCom can always be pursued at that time - but hopefully it will not become necessary".


 * Was consensus really as lopsided as you made it out to be? Did your notion of consensus, and numerous instances of trumped up charges by many throughout the topic ban proposal/arbitration proposal, give voting administrators a false impression of the situation? Did such a dogmatic approach give other members of the filing parties the false impression about the case? Did this lead to overconfidence and rejection of all mediation and negotiation? What I find remarkable was that those who voted no, did so on the principle that process was being abused. At that point I had only refuted one single piece of evidence. No one knew the bulk of my objections at that point".''


 * "The user's edits show a single purpose account" -
 * Is that 100% accurate?--scuro (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "...and all of my attempts to get the editor to provide sources has failed".
 * Place yourself in my shoes. My first comment to you stated everything that you needed to know.. Those points have never been acknowledged at any time, yet, on your talk page you immediately speak with a personal tone and acknowledge Doc James's concerns. Instead of letting Doc James file his rfc you tell him to hold off, "as I've posted the alert on WP:WQA, which will hopefully serve the same purpose of an RFC, but quicker". Quicker consensus building or quicker sanctions?
 * At that time your tone was judgmental and harsh with me, and I perceived bias. For example, posts like this next one gave me no confidence that I was being treated fairly, "This statement clearly shows you need to step away from the situation (for your own sanity and others), or removing yourself from the topic al together.... Further, is it really necessary to play the victim"? On May 14th I stated that, "I do not at all see you as neutral party here".  At the topic ban proposal I stated, "multiple people are accusing me of many things. I've been up most of the night putting responses together. I'm sorry if the length, and content, and questions not answered on my talk page didn't meet your expectations. Given the situation, one has to gage where one is going to sink ones time. Give me enough time, and have this community be specific, and I can respond at length about any topic". The following day you responded with this "compromise", "I am willing to compromise rather than continue with an outright long term topic ban, which as of now seems as though it's got community support. The compromise would entail you admitting to making mistakes and agreeing to a shorter term ban on things related to ADHD". Having never heard my side of the story, you had determined that a topic ban was in order. Is this how one mediates? Did you ever earnestly attempt mediation or negotiation between the parties? Was there an assumption of only my guilt right from the start?


 * I have admitted to making mistakes but what is so wrong with this whole process is how there has has been a laser like focus on only one party. So no, I didn't respond immediately to your concerns but there was a heck of a lot going on at the time on the talk pages and I had limited time. The bias seemed so obvious that I didn't think my efforts would bare fruit. I would have been a different story if at any time you had come to me earnestly seeking to understand the situation.--scuro (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The main complaint on the admin noticeboard was lack of evidence. No one had had the time to collect the relevant diffs as examples, apart from a handful of diffs, of issues we had with you. Those quotes from admin noticeboard I feel are irrelevant because evidence and diffs were presented to the arbcom and were reviewed whereas this was not the case on the admin noticeboard. Also it is old news and weak evidence and you have carefully selected certain quotes when in reality the balance of viewpoints were that you should be topic banned.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Further comment:You deleted this sentence from your post above, "Also it is old news and weak evidence and you have carefully selected certain quotes when in reality the balance of viewpoints were that you should be topic banned".  This isn't a gotcha, but I did want to make an observation on your idea. There are nine people arguing against a topic ban or arbitration. Add myself in and the majority would have wanted that mediation/ negotiation be attempted first. Funny, I even assumed that the consensus wasn't even close to being equal.--scuro (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

2) Probation (after or in lieu of a topic ban)
This would ensure that any new edits by the user comply with Wikipedia policy, especially the fundamental policy of the provision of reliable sources, notably when making controversial changes to articles.

Generally: after the topic ban, or during any probation, I would ask (and have asked here & here & here (and multiple others times)) for the editor to take a sample paragraph or sample sentences from the article that they dispute. Then they should submit them with sources and their corrections to a neutral 3rd party for review.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Question to Nja: Would suggested probation also require that article Talk page comments be submitted to neutral 3rd party for review, before being posted? If not, this proposal will have little or no effect on the present untenable situation. - Hordaland (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my delay. That I suppose would be up to Arb to decide. Nja 247 07:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a clear proposal here. Some kind of probation might be appropriate, but I don't know how that would work. I've often thought, though, that a topic ban with a responsible administrator allowing exceptions, or allowing supervised editing, can be better than a complete ban, providing a path to return to useful editorial function; however, this would depend on there being an admin who would invest the effort. It looks like Nja247 tried and failed. Unless Scuro comes up with a plan and finds someone who would carry it out, I don't see much hope for this. I also tried to help Scuro, and he was thoroughly allergic to it. --Abd (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I am not sure this would work as Nja already tried to supervise and mediate etc.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  11:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * comment How about simply stopping the smothering page ownership that has been alive and well on those articles for over 6 month? You might well get a full recovery to normalcy if you treat the underlining cause instead of trying to cure the symptom.--scuro (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

1) Ban or block from medicine, psychiatry and pharmacology projects
I propose that scuro is banned or blocked from the wiki medicine, psychiatry and pharmacology projects. All avenues have been exhausted and in the process just about every editor who has dealt with scuro is exhausted.

Here are avenues already tried.


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

Everyone has had enough of scuro and his disruption on talk pages and also articles. This has been going on for years now and there is no sign of it getting any better. The editing environment is intolerable. I think enough is enough and the time and patience of wikipedians has been drained and a lengthy ban or block is required. I will respect the decision of the ArbCom what ever it may be on this matter.

I just would like a close to this so that I can get back to editing wikipedia and it can become enjoyable again. The sooner this ArbCom is over the better. Thank you for considering my views.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Would support this. Scuro has proven that he is unwilling to follow WP:V and thus should not be editing content on Wikipedia.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Full support. His disruptive editing is mainly focused on ADHD articles, but it does extend elsewhere in other medical articles.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I do wonder however if the evidence supports this sanction. Nja 247 08:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not, most of the disruption admitedly has been focused on the ADHD articles. If he is only blocked from ADHD related articles (including methylphenidate and dexamphetamine) I think that most of the disruption would be evaded. I am just thinking of the drama on the electroconvulsive, disease mongering, reliable sources pages etc.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  10:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WP disrupt
The only way that this arbcom will ever make tthe slightest bit of difference to this issue is to make a rule regarding WP:DISRUPT which must cover both articles and talk pages. I will file a motion and I hope and pray the arbcom will endorse it as I true to God believe that this will work. Here goes, if scuro is determined to be misusing the talk pages for any disruptive or time wasting behaviour as judged by an administrator he will be blocked by the time decided by the arbcom. Intentional (not accidental) or repeated violation of wikipedia policies on reliable sources and deletion of cited data without consensus will if judged disruptive by admin lead to an enforcement by administrators for a time period decided by this arbcom. This measure is agreed because noone should be allowed to ruin the editing environment for others on wikipedia. We agree that no editor is perfect.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  07:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) Wikipedia's purpose is to create high quality, free, encyclopediatic articles, and to resolve any disputes through consensus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I agree with this statement but not when wiki policies or the term consensus is abused by individuals who engage in disruptive and trolling typ behaviours.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Consensus
2) Consensus involves not only talking, but listening to other editors as well.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I have strong support for this statement.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The ball is in your court. I can't listen unless you respond.--scuro (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Purpose of Talk Pages
3) The purpose of an article talk page is to develop the article. Those who post on the talk page are expected to stay on topic, and behave in a civil manner.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I have strong support for this statement.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Center of Dispute
1) The dispute in question revolves around the general conduct of scuro.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I agree with this.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The arbitration is called ADHD not Scuro. Obviously others saw this as more then a one dimensional problem.--scuro (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Scuro
2) has engaged in article ownership, edit warring, making uncivil accusations of other editors, and overall trolling.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I agree with this.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose vague findings like "trolling." Incivility, edit warring (old?), okay. Article ownership doesn't exist without either edit warring or incivility or both. ("Edit warring" exists, for an editor like Scuro, on a long time scale, it's not necessarily so easily visible on a single day, but it would mean the use of reversion without working toward improved and more complete and better sourced content, supported by broader consensus.) --Abd (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you say Abd but not entirely. Edit warring was recent. Incivility I think yes at times but don't think that alone has been the main disruption and is alone not sufficient for a block. The intentional disruption, is in my view the main issue. Ownership yes but his ownership failed because most of the editors opposed him so I would say he "lost his ownership" and it reverted back to the community which then sadly lead to increased disruption on the talk pages and edit warring. Some of the older editors on this arbcom know more though about this as I am going by from when I read over talk page and looked at some of scuro's old edit history links.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  20:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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

Scuro Topic Banned
1) Scuro is banned from all Psychology related articles and talk pages for {time determined by comments/arbitrators}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I would support a topic ban on psychiatry/psychology pages. I think that the below pages are the most important pages to ban scuro from editing. Some of the below pages would not be covered by a ban on psychology articles and would need to be included.


 * Adult attention-deficit disorder
 * Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder management
 * Methylphenidate
 * Dextroamphetamine
 * Stimulants
 * History of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
 * Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies
 * Social construct theory of ADHD
 * Neurodiversity-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Scuro advised
2) Scuro is advised to collaborate with and listen to other editors, and allow for outside opinion, rather than just his own.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I support this recommendation.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Scuro encouraged
3) Scuro is encouraged to edit other articles as well even after his ban has expired.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Weak support. Scuro has branched out to some degree to edit other articles, such as electroconvulsive therapy, ron paul article and others and displayed similar behaviour. It is more the "trolling" type behaviour on talk pages, editing violations and major disruption which are my main complaints rather than his main focus on ADHD. However, if scuro did increase his range of interests on wikipedia I guess it is not a bad idea, hence my weak support.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

All parties advised
4) All parties are advised to assume good faith, and keep a cool head when dealing with any disruptive editor, and to always work hard to assume the presence of a belly button.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I support this. This is good advice.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Scuro urged
5) Scuro is urged to stop creating arguments for the sake of it.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I would definitely support this.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Urged" is in no way sufficient. People have been "urging" in many different ways for a couple of years now. - Hordaland (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Ummm.  OK, now I've read the enforcement bit. Hopefully strong enough/actionable. - Hordaland (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * True Hordaland, this has already been tried over and over again and it failed.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  11:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See proposed enforcement below. This would be, like, a final warning.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 15:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

All editors advised
6) All editors that somehow come into contact with Scuro are advised not to feed the troll, and instead, contact an administrator directly.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Very strong support but this can be difficult based on how wikipedia works. Ignoring the troll leads the troll to claim "consensus" or allow unfounded or hypocritical accusations to lie unchallenged etc.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence the proposed enforcement below.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Scuro and trolling
1) Should Scuro be found starting arguments for the sake of starting arguments, he may be banned from Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I would support this.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Consensus
1) Consensus as well as collaboration can only be approached if the parties are willing and able to define what is to be discussed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree with this statement.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  02:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Awesome advice in general...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been clearly defined. The ball has been in your court for some time now.--scuro (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Good faith and disruption
2) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed again.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  02:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Defining the issue
1) Scuro refuses (or is unable) to specify what s/he wants consensus on, beyond very general issues with NPOV.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Fully agree, discussions are often vague, circular reasoning and very disruptive.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  02:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed principles
I'm fielding a couple of principles because I want to see how they are received. If people seem to agree with them I will propose them at Village pump (proposals) or another appropriate policy/guideline proposal page. If this isn't the right place for this then please remove this section. Thanks, Sifaka   talk  01:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Template Cleanup Messages
1a) The point of template cleanup messages (tags) is to get the attention of editors so that they may clean up the article. Tags are not a warning to readers that editors can post because they do not like some of the content in an article.

1b) Using template cleanup messages as a warning to readers because an editor or editors do not like some of the content in an article constitutes misuse.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Yea, and they should not be used based on original research or without giving a discription of the problem on the talk page.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  14:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Tags have two purposes. They alert the community AND the also alert the general reader that the community is not in full agreement about content. You may think that this is not so, but even if the major purpose of a tag has a community function, the general readership still uses that information. If you believe the tags have been misused then do something about it. It is totally wrong for editors to edit war to keep tags off the page. Far too many editors on the page seem to be a 100% sure of the motive of the editor who placed the tag up on the page in the first place. To think you are right, and act upon it without seeking true consensus, is a clear example of page ownership. This is many more times disruptive then allowing a tag to sit on a page until the "issue is resolved". --scuro (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support, for the most part, and specifically with the POV tag. Its instructions plainly say, "This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

2a) Should the addition of a tag prove contentious, then the burden of providing specific evidence that the article requires a tag falls on the editor adding the tag.

or the more specific version...

2b) Should the addition of a tag on a controversial article (one that has a controversial template on the talk page) prove contentious, then the burden of providing specific evidence that the article requires a tag falls on the editor adding the tag.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Then a citation tag or a consensus tag would require "proof" that consensus has not been reached, or that there is no citation? Would this not create a greater potential of conflict then to earnestly seek consensus and understanding of the other party? The article talk page can be a hostile place, why not earnestly seek understanding and consensus individually with the other party on their talk page?--scuro (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * I like version 2b more than 2a, but I decided that I should put the more comprehensive version out there to see how others felt about it. Sifaka   talk  01:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * From Prem Rawat 2. This and the following principle relate to the underlying content disputes. --bainer (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Strong support for this but only in conjunction with reliable sources.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  05:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * From Prem Rawat 2. This and the preceding principle relate to the underlying content disputes. --bainer (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I support this. Although this statement should not be an endorsement of endless original research arguments on talk pages. Controversial statements for or against a certain fact must be reliably cited.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  05:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I'm not aware of any established wording on verifiability, but this is essentially drawn from or is a summation of the relevant policy pages. --bainer (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Strong support for this.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  05:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with this, but as I have demonstrated, my citations are pulled off the page, and edit warred to make sure they stay off. On other pages and previous to page ownership, citations were provided.--scuro (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I only edited the page for a few weeks but from reading your evidence I see no evidence of this and multiple editors have said you are welcome to edit the article with reliable sources.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  16:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do look at the "17 edits" evidence. It shows compelling evidence of page ownership. Really I don't get your statement, it doesn't jive with the vilification of myself and all the calls for a blanket topic ban with heavy probation restrictions. Now I am, "welcome" to edit the page!??? My door is still open... if it's not too late to go down that road. The ball would very much be in your collective courts. May I suggest that you make a bold offer to show good faith and earnestness in seeking a quick solution.--scuro (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If anything I think that evidence shows you being the one who is trying to control the article rather than Doc James. Anyway scuro, all of this filling the pages of the arbcom with more of the same back and forth accusations is going to bare no fruit. The arbcom have voted and the case is going to be closed and a result will be posted by the arbcom. I think that the best thing is stop the back and forward arguments and lets see how everybody can move on from this.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Standard. --bainer (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I support this.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  05:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Standard (trimming a few irrelevant items in the list). --bainer (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support this, should help matters but I don't think it is the cure.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  05:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue of assumptions of bad faith must be addressed. All the filing parties, at every turn, avoided any form of mediation or negotiation throughout the topic ban proposal and arbitration. None of the filing parties have ever bothered to earnestly resolve differences on my talk page. In doing so, the number one criteria of filing an arbitration case was circumvented, since no serious "other" route at dispute resolution was ever filed by the other parties besides myself. The best solution would have been a negotiated solution and barring that, a mediated solution. Administrators involved in the escalating series of sanction proposals said as much. No one will be happy with the forced final outcome here. Granted, as some of the editors have suggested, seeking a communal solution may not have solved the problem. Editors may simply revert to their former behaviour after a set period of time, but this is a very necessary step of the sanction process. Wikipedia functions far more smoothly when editors are given the opportunity to self-correct their behaviour, and negotiate/mediate solutions amongst themselves.--scuro (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No mention has been made of Literaturegeek's or Unionhawk's personal attacks and incivility
 * Literaturegeek has been disruptive in this regard on the talk pages, through the topic ban proposal, and arbitration. She continued after Stephen Bain pointed out these issues with his proposal. She also appears to have an abrasive style and has had several conflicts with other contributors on other pages. Unionhawk has short comings in this regard also.--scuro (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. The personalising of the underlying content issues seems to be the reason why this dispute has proceeded so far. The intermixing of content and personal disputes is the reason why prior dispute resolution efforts have had difficulty dealing with the situation, due to the problem of having to extract one problem or the other. --bainer (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * True, personalising things is a bad idea and leads to more problems but is not relevant to this arbcom as there are several editors here who have never been uncivil with scuro but found it impossible to reason with him and find consensus.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  05:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It is clear wikipedia disruptive behaviour by editor scuro. Can you not see the pointless drama even on this arbcom by scuro? Twisting facts and arguing them, not acknowledging other people's point of view, denying. This is the same with the talk pages. Imagine day in day out the talk page filling up with nonsense and nonproductive editing. it is fine for you to say all of this but you are not stuck wasting several hours per day engaged in dealing with nonsense on talk page. That is why and only why this has reached the level that it has. It is intolerable for anyone. How would you feel if one editor totally ruined your editing experience on wikipedia? Would you just accept wasting your life engaged in forum debates when you just want to discuss reliable sources and develop the encyclopedia?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  06:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with this concept and often asked contributors to focus on content and not the contributor. There are many examples, such as the one above, of other contributors straying way off topic and not answering questions.--scuro (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Standard. --bainer (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree. I respectively believe it is the role to settle bad faith disruptive behaviour on talk pages and articles.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  05:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. --bainer (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Disagree (respectfully). The main problems have been major disruption on talk pages more than anything else but also articles to a lesser extent. We have a diverse range of opinions of editors and we all regularly reach compromise and get along fine. The only issue is scuro. This arbcom is totally missing the boat if you are going to focus on occasional edit warring and occasional uncivilness. The problem is not occasional edit warring or occasional uncivility a few times per year but major serious disruptive behaviour on a sometimes daily basis by scuro which severely slows down editing and makes the editing environment miserable for everyone regardless of POV on the actual article. Nobody would have come to an arbcom over occasional incivilty and edit warring if that is all the problem is. This arbcom is missing the point. Anyone faced with having to waste hours per day dealing with the disruptive behaviour of scuro would lose their temper. If this issue is not resolved it is impossible to resolve people losing their temper from time to time with scuro.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  05:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll agree that talk-page behavior is part of this dispute, and that personalization is part of that; however, I was disturbed by the filing of this RfAr, because it should be possible for local editorial consensus to deal with this, and only where it breaks into edit warring or serious incivility should it rise to this level. I disagree with the comment below that lack of response is usually taken to mean consensus; that directly contradicts the language of the policy, which states, silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community. Further, any implication of consent is easily removed by later disagreement when the matter has become important, as with an actual article edit. Wikipedia is vast and working editors few, so lack of response to a talk page comment means nothing. The comment itself may establish an attempt to discuss, and thus an edit that should require discussion may be legitimized by the original comment, but no presumption is created that the article edit can't be reverted because of some implied "consent" from silence. This idea that silence = consent is pernicious and is used both to repress extensive comments and to justify uncivil response. Where comment length or lack of application to the article is excessive, the comment may be collapsed or archived or, in the extreme, deleted, quickly, on that basis; I'm known for verbosity, and some editors don't understand what I write or don't have the patience to parse it -- or sometimes I wander --, and I see no problem with this response to my posts; I will not edit war over it; I might, if I think a comment particularly important, leave it in collapse or even as deleted, but I'll add a summary that's visible (with a link if necessary), and others who are interested can read the complete comment, or someone else will add the summary. It works, and it doesn't require blocks or bans, for editors who are truly concerned with "domination" of a talk page or section; on the other hand, editors who strongly disagree with the verbose editor may use the length of comments as an excuse to argue for a ban, which is dangerous. Some experts, for example, may be verbose.
 * The real issue here is personalization that breeds incivility, and, yes, that's visible in this RfAr. --Abd (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Page ownership is the locust of this dispute and until this issue is addressed, arbitration will not have "broken the back" of the dispute and instead focused on "side effects", instead of the cause of conflict. When contributors are not allowed to post consensus tags and are "blocked off" the page, frustration and resentment build over time. Doc James backed out of both his med cab and rfc so the dispute was never resolved and allowed to fester. Several of the filing parties in this dispute have shown themselves to be overly passionate about issues and have disregard several wiki guidelines throughout the topic ban proposal and arbitration. There is a danger here that minority/fringe opinion will continue to control an article through numbers of edits, and numbers of editors.  The evidence on page ownership is compelling and extensive.   --scuro (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I don't think the current locus of dispute is comprehensive enough. While disagreements related to undue weight and personalization of the arguments are part of the issue, I think editing behavior is equally important. Specifically I am referring to protracted discussions, inappropriate talk page sections, and "section hijacking". The protracted discussions, besides being TLDR, make it hard to figure out what is actively being debated by whom, are distracting especially when one is trying to seek input from other editors, and are intimidating to non-regular editors. Since lack of response is usually taken to mean consensus, editors feel obliged to respond. When the topic recurs repeatedly it becomes frustrating and time consuming to keep rehashing one's views over and over. I think the locus of the dispute should be expanded to cover this. Sifaka   talk  21:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Very well put. - Hordaland (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring
2A) has edit-warred on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and associated articles:
 * September 2008:, ,
 * September 2008: (initial addition, July), ,
 * October 2008: ,
 * November 2008:, , ,
 * April 2009:, , , , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies&diff=next&oldid=286525730&diffonly=1],
 * May 2009:, (partial revert),  (partial revert)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. --bainer (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed but not really a big deal, as your evidence showed it only caused disruption once every few months on average. The disruption on talk pages is 100 times worse but is not even mentioned on this arbcom. I must say I am disappointed. The edit warring could easily have been dealt with on admin noticeboard rather than arbcom. I am disappointed in arbcom, I am sorry.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  06:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. --bainer (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * True but only a few diffs and not the big deal on the grand scheme of things. With respect we are not here because we got our feelings hurt a few times in a year. I thought it was clear the issue was major disruptive tactics used to ruin the editing environment, particularly on the talk pages. I really feel this arbcom is making a big deal out of small issues which happened a few times every 6 or 12 months and are not addressing at all what really is the disruption and what has ruined the editing environment for everyone even people who have similar views as scuro. I don't think anyone is bothered over a few uncivil remarks or reverting a few times too many. that kind of stuff cann be dealt with on admin noticeboard. What couldn't be dealt with is the repeated disruption on talk page which paralysed editing for everyone.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  06:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree... Scuro has been a bit more than occasionally incivil...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 20:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. --bainer (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I respectfully disagree, looks like defending the article against original research and deletion of cited data and abuse of tags. Also edit warring claim is dubious and open to interpretation. Reverts looked justified to me and didn't exceed 3 in 24 hours.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  06:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit warring happened recently on another article as well. --scuro (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure were the edit warring comes in?-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. --bainer (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * To be fair the evidence submitted seems to show that Doc James obided by the agreement in Rfc's to not personalise arguments. The evidence is all from 2008. We are half way through 2009 now. It seems that he is being "repunished" when he has not "reoffended".-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  05:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * These examples go back to November, and as noted below this user has apologised since then. Nja 247 07:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nja247 is more familiar than I with the recent behavior. I agree that the examples are old. Further, when one party regularly personalizes disputes, it tends to influence others to do the same. To look at one side in isolation, particularly with the relatively mild examples shown, can create a misleading picture. I'm not justifying Jmh649's old behavior, but, considering the more informed position of Nja247, I do not recommend this finding unless it is made clear this is old behavior. Old behavior is still relevant, since it can contribute to the ongoing behavior of other editors, but apologies and a change should have ended that excuse for Scuro. --Abd (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * He has recently been uncivil on another article. It's hard to determine the extent of his behaviour on this article and possibly others, because he erases comments that he doesn't like. He is also being uncivil by trying to influence others by branding me unfairly on their talk page. The examples below all come after November.


 * 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 []


 * 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 )--scuro (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. --bainer (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Strong oppose. I did not revert more than twice in 24 hours. Whilst the edit warring is open to interpretation I do not feel I was wrong in those reverts and do not think that they were excessive over the time period cited. -- Literature geek |  T@1k?  05:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

On 2nd thoughts I think it is better to accept your verdict even though I question it. No one is a perfect editor and I guess there are times when chosing a different option may have resulted in a better result.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  07:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As I have finished developing ADHD articles I shouldn't be doing anymore reverts, unless clear vandalism.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  06:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. --bainer (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I accept this decision by the arbcom. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  05:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I'd like to see the phrase "interpreted broadly", or words to that effect, in this proposal, because I don't want someone to say "Well, that just applies to ADHD, and I'm dealing with ADD, which is different." WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. --bainer (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * 1) Support this. Should help issues on the articles but still need the main issue of talk page disruption which is really what is making editing on wikipedia miserable for everyone. Talk pages must be focused on content and citations and no disruptive tactics used.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  05:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) This seems fitting, however it should be made clear to the editor what 1RR means, and how it could be enforced without any warning. Also something still needs addressed on this editor's trend of circularity of arguments that go no where and the use of tags. Nja 247 07:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as minimal; does not deal with talk page behavior; mentorship, below, should cover that; further, other editors involved with those articles can and should restrain Scuro with respect to Talk page behavior, using refactoring where appropriate. 1RR should apply to Talk as well as to articles. The practical effect of this is that any Scuro comment may be collapsed, archived, or even removed, by any editor, and for it to return would take the active consent of another editor who restores it. Scuro would have satisfied the requirement to discuss by his comment. Tags are like any other article edit; tags may be removed by any editor who believes that the matter has been adequately discussed and the tag isn't supported by consensus (or by a substantial faction of editors).--Abd (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) On second thoughts, picture this, scuro goes mass deleting, abusing his new powers of untouchability, editors involved on arbcom are nervous to revert even those who have no restrictions after arbcom, encyclopedia deteriorates, this might make things much worse unless very careful thought is given to all possible scenarios. I am sorry but this is the wrong diagnosis and the wrong treatment. It is like diagnosing diabetes as depression and prescribing antidepressants, the patient dies. I mean absolutely no disrespect to arbcom staff, I know your job is very tough and you are outsiders looking in. Please consider this diagnosis and solution/medication.Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Workshop-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  08:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I can't picture that... He violates his s restriction, he gets blocked. No questions asked.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 20:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I dunno why I wrote that, it was early in the morning so probably wasn't thinking straight or misread something, so I still support. I think I was just getting visions where everyone is nervous editing the article even non-involved editors. You are right union. I still think WP:DISRUPT needs applying especially to talk pages and user talk pages.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Scuro placed under mentorship
3) is placed under mentorship for a period of one year. Scuro shall find a mentor of his choice, and shall inform the Committee once the mentor has been selected; if no mentor is found within one month of the closure of this case, the Committee will appoint a mentor. The terms of the mentorship must cover guidance on Wikipedia's sourcing and citation guidelines, but otherwise Scuro and the mentor are free to decide on the terms. Once an agreement on the terms is reached, Scuro or the mentor shall advise the Committee of the terms by email.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. --bainer (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Apprehensive of this one. Can scuro choose one of his own mentors? Surely the mentor must be neutral. This could make things worse if scuro tracks down someone who is perhaps hostile to an editor and it could make things worse or am I paranoid? Hmmm, LOL. Just not familar with how a mentor is chosen is all. I would have liked someone "official" and trusted by the arbcom rather than a random person as it is a bit unpredictable the outcome then.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  06:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a good idea and I do like this, I am not opposing this, just have a few concerns. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  06:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Scuro definitely needs guidance.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 20:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Yes, Scuro chooses his own mentor. Ideally, a mentor should be an editor sympathetic to the legitimate purposes of the mentored editor, as well as reasonably respected and knowledgeable, and if no mentor can be found, then it's quite likely that Scuro isn't suited to edit Wikipedia in the subject area. There probably should be process established for ArbComm to accept mentorships, it's been a bit rag-tag; in my view, a topic-restricted or banned editor should be required to have a mentor and the ban should be, in the absence of a functional mentor, strict, pending. (I also believe that every ban should have a supervising neutral administrator, who is not a mentor, and who can make ad-hoc decisions as necessary regarding interpretation of the ban, on behalf of the community and subject to review by ArbComm.) --Abd (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The mentorship idea was originally mine. How does an editor, who at times is the only editor holding majority viewpoint on the page, deal with several editors who are passionate and hold minority or fringe viewpoint on key issues? How does one deal with page ownership and having virtually all of your edits blocked off the page? What do you do when no one wants to seek true consensus? My past approach of avoiding editing the page and trying to seek consensus on the page has not worked. I was hoping that a good mentor could show me how to steer through rough waters and be a more valuable contributor.


 * Mentorship should be a condition for Doc James and Literaturegeek. Doc James has significant page ownership issues, possibly spanning numerous articles, as does Literaturegeek. Both are also uncivil on other articles as well, and Literaturegeek has an abrasive style that often puts her in conflict with other editors on other articles. Unionhawk is also abusive but unlike the two editors mentioned above, has little experience editing. Perhaps a warning would suffice.--scuro (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I find that you can be abrasive yourself like you were today.Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder Listen scuro, the votes are in, the arbcom is essentially over now. Best advice is give it a rest and lets just move on from here as I noted to you above.


 * Comment by others:
 * Maybe a doctor or someone from wikiproject medicine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me, I like this idea but not una smith (I am sure she is a lovely lady but she seemed to have a biased interpretation of the situation).-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  14:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am concerned that retaining the services of a mentor will be a problem. Mentorships involving people with tendentious reputations (whether deserved or not) seem to be rather short-lived:  either the mentor quietly gives up, or they quit entirely, and then we've made no progress at all.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is why I suggest a supervising admin for bans. Mentors may bail or become absent for any of many reasons; there should be a process for a mentorship to be approved and to be replaced if it fails. If a mentored editor is uncooperative with the mentor, that may make it difficult for the editor to find a replacement, and my opinion is that when mentorship is a condition for continued editing privileges, having no active, consenting mentor, would, subject to the discretion of the supervising admin, convert a restriction into a complete ban, pending. At the same time, the mentor should be acceptable to the restricted editor, and the more rapport between the two, the more likely the process is to succeed. Can Scuro develop and maintain this relationship, from his side? If not, he probably can't develop it with the community as a whole. --Abd (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wonderful suggestion(s), Abd. That ought to be policy, and why isn't it?  I remember a case where the mentor decided after a coupla weeks that no mentoring was needed.  Back to square one, even more frustrated. - Hordaland (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. --bainer (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * 1) Strong oppose. Doc James was not being disruptive, was not filling talk pages with original research and manipulative arguments and edit warring based on original research like scuro. He was not edit warring and challenging articles based on original research and opinion. Wiki works via reliable sources which scuro couldn't provide so scuro just edit warred instead. It is unfair to punish someone for protecting the article from uncited attacks and deletions of well cited data.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  06:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) This user has admitted mistakes, whilst Scuro has not. I see less utility in this sanction in preventing disruption. Nja 247 07:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) This seems a little over handed. If you look back over my edit history you will see that I have added dozens of references to support every point I have added to the ADHD pages.  Often I have added 3 or 4 references to support a single point as even the most basic assetions have been  contested.  I would respectfully request that arbitrators look at the state of the ADHD page and the controversis pages before I started editting and currently.  Would provide diffs but in South America.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) I would suggest changing "one revert per page per week within the topic area" to "one revert per page per day within the topic area".  I've observed Doc James (Jmh649) on these pages the last months and I agree with WhatAmIDoing, Nja and James himself that he has learned the ropes and is now a cooperative and valuable contributor to the project. 'Twould be a shame to chase him away; the proposed restriction is too extreme IMO. - Hordaland (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support with reduction to standard 1RR, per others above. Possible abuse of this, such as with repeated daily reversions, can be dealt with under ordinary edit warring prohibition. --Abd (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) This is an editor who used page ownership to control all content on the page to his "standards" for many months. For example, he keeps his own poor references on the page even after a second opinion points out it is not an ideal reference, and removes good references because they are not "ideal". This issue appears to go beyond the adhd pages. Unlike myself, he has had a med cab and rfc specifically focusing on this issue, and backed out of both of them. Abd has mentored him. He has admitted mistakes and committed to changing his behaviour in the past, but the commitments were broken in short order and the behaivour continued. There is ample and compelling evidence of page ownership from the moment he seriously started editing the page, and it hasn't stopped to date. Reverting has been the tool used. He has been a filing party every step along the way and knows very well that arbitration can go either way. He has avoided all attempts at completing concrete mediation or negotiation and has forced the hand of arbitration by not following process. One major difference here is that he wasn't caught until now, this is not a reason for leniency. There is no reason why his proposed sanction should be of equal weighting then my sanction. I've had two 3R sanctions and was put through a topic ban proposal on the same day as my second 3R block. The focus has been exclusively on myself for almost two months. Doc James has been spared this rather unpleasant experience although he is just as deserving, or even more deserving then myself. Also, unlike Doc James, I have not been allowed the option of negotiation or mediation in previous processes.--scuro (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. --bainer (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I don't believe that I edit warred. I did invest a hours upon hours of time trying to resolve issues on the talk page as well on a number of issues so feel I followed proper channels and routes during any content disputes. However, I will accept the verdict of this arbcom out of respect. I can't see me having any problems in the future on ADHD articles as I have finished contributing to them (although they are still on my watch list for vandalism or talk page discussions etc). :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  06:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I shall be very cautious in the future about reverting on ADHD pages and will seek alternative resolutions eg if necessary 3rd party independent opinion or dispute resolution on talk page.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  07:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Yeah, you sort of did edit war a little bit. Not extensively, but, a bit.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 20:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Okie dokie, I shall accept the consensus that I (kind of a little bit edit warred as unionhawk put it hehe), I will try to be more cautious in future folks. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * She has been filing party every step along the way and knows very well that arbitration can go either way. She has avoided all attempts at completing concrete mediation or negotiation and has forced the hand of arbitration by not following process. She edit wars on other pages   and edit warred on the ADHD articles. She edit warred to keep material that she doesn't like off of the ADHD page and other pages and has twice reverted within an hour, how can one resolve differences if one reverts so quickly? If the goal of arbitration is to "break the back" of future conflict, she needs to be sanctioned.


 * Literaturegeek and continued uncivilness - this needs to be addressed
 * She has been abusive during the topic ban proposal, and arbitration and this continued after Stephen Bain pointed out these issues with his proposal. For example she stated; "as scuro's essentially has been making editors experiences on wikipedia a living death until they give up and leave and still a year later he is getting away with it. What amazes me is the ability of scuro to almost get people hypnotised and manipulate them (like on this admin discussion board for example and else where over the years) that he is an innocent persecuted victim and his opponents who he forces off wikipedia and removes all their contributions are terrible people. But then again I do understand because human beings are the perfect hypnotic subjects but that is another debate for another day. :) He wants these big discussions to wear people out. I see now Nja is being seen by some as persecuting poor scuro and poor scuro needs a break, I have been seen as the bad party, this is what I meant by scuro being professional in how he disrupts wikipedia and the levels he goes to and why I am willing to invest so much time in this admin noticeboard as enough is enough, years of forcing editors off, deleting anything they add which scuro doesn't like. Scuro knows when to be aggressive and knows when to calm down, it is all manipulative behaviour and he invests an enormous amount of time into doing this but yet admins can't see it as they don't follow it. The only time I have been involved in official wiki discussions was a discussion was when I was being harassed by sock puppets of mwalla, a vandal. I do not enjoy these debates. She also appears to have an abrasive style and conflicts on other pages". This behaviour and "drama" also continues to date on other pages.
 * |"removing childish bullshit"--scuro (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of those refs were a dispute with an editor who I believed was from an unnamed drug company. There were numerous behavioural reasons for this and also their ip address showed them within a few miles of the drug company. To explain the background of those edits would take an arbcom of its own. The problems raised regarding the antidepressant articles are not due to me as I have not contributed to them to any great degree. That reader just saw my username on the talk page of the paroxetine page and sent me a notice. Here is link to full conversation which you are taking out of context.User_talk:Literaturegeek-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. --bainer (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree with this, good advice. :) I don't think this was a major issue though. There appeared to only be a handful of incidents not without serious provocation. This is an outside opinion as I did not engage in personal attacks and was reasonably civil but understand why other editors lost their temper on occasion. I feel this arbcom is inflicting victims with further endless drama on article talk pages with pressure to increase our time engaging with trolling behaviour and pressuring victims of scuro to give good faith to obvious disruptove behaviour.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  06:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the "personalising" of disputes could use more definition. It should include not only editor A characterising editor B as [unreasonable, whatever, fill in the blank], but also editor A using a great amount of space to characterise self as victim, misunderstood, willing-but-not-allowed, etc.  It is this sort of personalising which scuro indulges in at length, expounding on her/his interpretation of and relationship to Wikipedia principles, policies and guidelines. It's tiresome when perhaps 50% of talk page space is filled with this, which is essentially off-topic when carried to extremes.  Potential contributors stay away, so the situation worsens. - Hordaland (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your example personalizes the whole issue all over again in an unfair way. Could you not simply state, "content, not the contributor"?--scuro (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Editors encouraged
7) All editors interested in the topic area are encouraged to seek outside editorial assistance (by way of a request for comment, or by seeking input from relevant WikiProjects) in resolving the editorial disagreements relating to the due weight to be accorded to various points of view on controversies relating to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. The need for third-party input is strongly felt here; moreover since this dispute is fundamentally about content, with personal issues intermixed, resolution of both aspects is necessary, and the Committee cannot deliver that. --bainer (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * 1) The issue is intentional trolling, WP:DISRUPT and original research. All that has to be done is to say talk pages and articles must be discussed or edited only based on reliable sources. No time wasting debates based on POV/original research, no distorting refs, no taking refs out of context and then spinning silly endless nonsense onto talk page. A strict no-nonsense on the talk pages. Scuro is perfectly free to and always has been to contribute to discussions and editing using reliable sources. This arbcom can solve all of the problems if you want to. All you need to do is file a motion that talk pages are only to be used to discuss reliable sources and sources used within article with no disruptove behaviour; That article content must be contributed to and challenged by reliable sources with no disruptive tactics used on talk page. Break WP:DISRUPT then block. All that is needed. You can solve 90% if not 100% of the problems if you do this. If the arbcom doesn't pass a motion regarding disruption I feel nothing will be achieved.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  07:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC) See my proposal here.Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Workshop-- Literature geek  |  T@1k?  08:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Please do note that this had been attempted, ie collaborative input from Wikiproject Medicine was sought and 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. Nja 247 07:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) As I have stated before, Nja, why invite others to your house when it is in disarray? If the mess was worthy of arbitration why would any reasonable person invite the community to the page in the middle of conflict, where one editor hasn't been allowed to edit the page for over 6 months?--scuro (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Here and elsewhere, scuro seems to believe that inviting others "to your house when it is in disarray" is a bad idea.  If that were one's personal living space in real life, I might agree; cleaning up my living room is my responsibility alone.  However, inviting others is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work: collaboration with 'new pairs of eyes' is precisely the best approach in resolving the editorial disagreements. - Hordaland (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Standard. --bainer (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support this measure.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Dispute resolution
1) The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction to arbitrate disputes about editor behavior regardless of whether all participants agree that sufficient prior steps in the dispute resolution process were undertaken before the Arbitration Committee was asked to hear the case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment As I understand it now, consensus trumps all. That doesn't mean that the total lack of any dispute resolution process instigated by the filing parties isn't a very significant mitigating factor in this dispute.--scuro (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Purpose of Wikipedia
2) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia. This goal cannot be accomplished without collaboration, mutual respect, and civility between contributors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support. Also it cannot happen when there is heavy trolling behaviour going on and WP:DISRUPT.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree..--scuro (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Note, please, that this is an intentional departure from the usual formulation, because I think it's important in this case to indicate that a congenial environment, while a moral good, is a means to an end on Wikipedia, not an end unto itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Medicine-related articles
4) Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the information it provides about medicine-related topics should accurately reflect current mainstream medical thought. Medicine-related articles must strive to present the current state of knowledge, without speculation about which new research, treatments, or ideas will be accepted in the future, and without undue emphasis on ideas that do not have wide acceptance at this time.  Editors should make an effort to use up-to-date sources and should rely on secondary sources, such as medical textbooks and high-quality medical journals.  Editors should never use primary sources to "debunk" secondary sources or to misrepresent new or fringe ideas as having wide acceptance.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Accept this, though need to bare in mind that some high quality meta-analysis's or reviews may cover an area which most doctors aren't aware of, so as long as the argument "most doctors don't believe or aren't aware" isn't used to go on mass deletion sprees of well referenced and relevant text I fully support this. I am just trying to cover any loopholes that might be "exploited" by editors to harm the encyclopedia is all.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I, too, find this paragraph somewhat troublesome. Agree in general with LG here. - Hordaland (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This statement is adapted from ArbCom's usual statement about science-related articles. I'm not troubled by the above concerns, because the content of high-quality reviews is practically the definition of "mainstream medical thought" and "the current state of knowledge".  That many individual physicians don't know what's in the formal literature on any given subject is irrelevant.  There are literally millions of papers published each year; no one can read them all.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Editors of medicine-related articles
5) People affected by complex medical conditions frequently hold firm personal beliefs about these conditions, their causes, and the appropriate treatments. Being a patient or doing research about a medical condition can, in some instances, constitute a conflict of interest for Wikipedia's purposes.  It is critical that editors not be swayed by their personal experiences, but instead rely on high-quality, published reliable sources when writing articles.  Both patients and medical professionals are permitted to edit medicine-related articles, so long as their contributions comply with Wikipedia's core principles, especially WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutrality.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  18:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * question We have two editors who have ADHD, editing the page. We have another editor who seems to be involved personally with personel of a possible anti-pharma website. Finally, we have an editor who seems to have strong feelings about certain medications, and I believe could possibly have a personal connection here. What are you proposing?--scuro (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Neutrality
6) Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas, such as advocacy for a particular viewpoint, or to publish or promote original research, is prohibited. Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view.  Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings, all editors must strive to ensure articles give prominence to all significant viewpoints in proportion to the weight of high-quality reliable sources, instead of in proportion to the weight of the editors' personal opinions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  18:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Single purpose accounts
7) Like all editors, single-purpose accounts are expected to comply with the WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutrality policies instead of following their own agendas. If an editor is unable to do so, then this strongly suggests that his participation is not ultimately compatible with Wikipedia's primary goal.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support. What the main problem is the WP:DISRUPT tactics which is going along with the SPA, this makes things 10 times worse.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you implying something here? If so make your case.--scuro (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Collaboration is different from talking
8) It is possible to collaborate without talking, and to talk without collaborating.  Long conversations on an article's talk page are not proof of collaboration.  Repetitive, meandering, pointless, circular, and needelssly protracted conversations are often signs of disruption instead of effective collaboration.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Important point, well put. - Hordaland (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is one of the most important areas. I find a lot of disruptive editors refuse to acknowledge your points, debate them and come to compromise.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have assumed motive. I've clearly stated that page ownership is the cause of dysfunction on the talk page. Would it not be smarter to address this issue first to see if this would solve the problem? There is clear cause and effect relationship on the talk page. My editing behaviour changed when I was not allowed to edit the page.--scuro (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Scuro disrupted talk pages
1) That User:Scuro disrupted the talk page of Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and other articles in the topic area.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support. This is a major problem.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Make your case. There are many instances on the talk pages where the filing parties ignored questions, were uncivil, and disruptive. Others have asked for evidence and none was presented. Instead we hear that the disruption is subtle, and that you have to edit the page for a while to fully comprehend the extent of the disruption. Could it be that once more we have contributors who have overstated their case?--scuro (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did state my case on the evidence page and you stated yours. No need to rehash the evidence here, that is not what the workshop is for.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Jmh649 and edit warring
2) User:Jmh649 engaged in edit warring when he was a relatively inexperienced editor. He responded appropriately to criticism of this action by stopping this behavior.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Unsure evidence is strong enough to endorse this. It is debatable if he edit warred.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  18:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not remember that far back but when I started I was unsure of Wiki rules and frusterated by editing so very possibiby did edit war. Have not however since I have become aware of the exact regulations.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a case of blatant and ongoing edit warring to achieve the goal of page ownership.--scuro (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Perhaps not; I do remember hearing about a small problem along those lines last summer. I don't have the time to find diffs for it.  What's more important is to acknowledge that while he's not been letter-perfect from day one (and who among us has?), he's been more responsive to criticism than the average editor, and he has actually stopped behaviors that were pointed out to him as being undesirable.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Scuro topic-banned
1) Scuro is prohibited from editing both articles and talk pages in the topic area during the next 12 months, except when his editing is being closely monitored by a mentor. If the mentor resigns or otherwise becomes unavailable, Scuro may not edit any of these pages.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed. Needs perhaps something about the qualifications of the mentor. - Hordaland (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  14:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentWhat's good for the goose is good for the gander. Literaturegeek and Doc James should receive similar sanctions. A good case could be made that there behaviour is more serious and ongoing and consequently the sanctions should be harsher.--scuro (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Something that has occurred to me because of another ArbCom case: I'm looking for a mentor here that watchlists the pages in the disputed areas and actually takes sixty seconds every day or two to see whether Scuro has edited any of the articles or talk pages, not a mentor who says, "Let me know if you need something, and if I don't hear from you, I'll assume that everything's fine."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Jmh649 encouraged
2) User:Jmh649's work has improved since his first months on Wikipedia, and he is encouraged to continue improving his skills in dealing with complex situations, to continue listening to constructive criticism of his conduct, and to continue advocating for reliance on high-quality reliable sources.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Find Consensus
1) "Disputes on Wikipedia are settled by editing and discussion, not voting. Discussion should aim towards building a WP:consensus. Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * All of the filing parties have avoided negotiation, mediation, or earnest attempts at seeking consensus. This is an ongoing problem and the filing parties have circumvented one of the major principals of the four pillar of Wikipedia.--scuro (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Honesty/ gaming the system
1) "Honesty is expected in all processes of Wikipedia, including content discussion, the dispute process and all other functions of the community. Editors are reminded that while you may expect an assumption of good faith, this is based on the counter-assumption of honesty in your actions".

"Gaming the system means using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship deliberately....Mis-using Wikipedia processes to put another editor in an invidious position...can also be a form of gaming....If gaming is also knowingly used as a basis to impugn another editor or to mischaracterize them as bad faith editors, then this may also violate the policy of no personal attacks".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Specifically, Abd, WhatamIdoing, and JReading trumped up their initial charges . This gave the filing parties the impression that the case was "rock solid" and may have stopped mediation or negotiation from happening. Abd, deserves special mention here. His instance that I drove Dr. Sobo away was picked up by several of the filing parties. They all became convinced that of my "serious" wrong doing, yet the evidence clearly shows that this was not case. Trumping up charges is a frivolous abuse of process and these editors should at least be warned.--scuro (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, of course. As to Scuro's comment, it's mysterious to me. The diffs are to his own arguments, so what he's doing here is making unsubstantiated charges. I wasn't a "filing party," and I wasn't thrilled to see this arbitration. I'll stand with my claim that Dr. Sobo was inhibited from contributing here by Scuro's uncivil opposition, but I wouldn't have taken him to ArbComm over that, lesser remedies would have sufficed, I'm sure, had there been an ongoing situation that came to my attention. Why is this under "honesty?" Perhaps I've misunderstood the situation with Dr. Sobo, which would be an error, not dishonesty. What I can affirm without hesitation is that I presented the matter as I remembered it. If Scuro is claiming that I was dishonest, he would be displaying the behavior that is being reprimanded here, personalizing the dispute. It seems he doesn't get it. He claims that the other editors were "convinced," but then tries to tar them with "trumping up charges." That's not consistent, it's self-contradictory. Sad. --Abd (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The "charges" are not unsubstantiated, they are well documented. You were around at the time of Dr. Sobo, were you not aware of how abusive Dr. Sobo was? Your first line on the topic ban proposal states, "Scuro has been disruptive and has driven off at least one expert and wasted a great deal of editor time". Is that a 100% honest statement? This is not an "attack". What I found at this arbitration is that I am being held to a high standard of behaviour with no alternatives but sanctions. I can live with that, but then what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. Those who "stir the pot" have some responsibility in this mess and should also be accountable. Had you not made your statement, other parties wouldn't have repeated it, and internalized it. Negotiation may have been attempted. Arbitrators have been forced to resolve this dispute through sanctions because all the parties are unwilling to resolve issues in any other fashion. Attempts were certainly made, not only by myself but by several other parties. The title of this arbitration is ADHD. The focus is on all parties involved in this dispute. You were involved in the past to a lesser degree and now you have injected yourself fully into the dispute through every sanction process along the way. I see no reason why your actions shouldn't also be judged.--scuro (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A majority of the parties have overstated their case. Wikipedia states that contributors should, "not say things they know to be untrue simply to support their argument". From the posts of the parties on the evidence page I have been made out to be a villain who can "make administrators turn on other administrators". I do so by: "destroying evidence", "evading scrutiny", and "making sure conversations go no where at all". I am "manipulative" and "intimidate other contributors", yet at the same time I "lack care in my responses" and I am not "logical". We see this sort of hyperbole throughout the topic ban proposal, request for arbitration, and arbitration. If contributors would have been more objective and honest with their contributions perhaps this case would have been rejected. It's been hard reading this stuff, some of it is spiteful.--scuro (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I rest my case. Literally. If Scuro has some specific dispute, or wishes to seek my assistance with the ADHD pages, he's welcome. I can understand how painful it can be to read Wikipedia debate over personal behavior, and sympathize. The sanctions imposed in this case are mild; the most significant one is mentorship. Choose well, Scuro, and you and the project will benefit. --Abd (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Further comment What have we learned through the topic ban proposal and arbitration? Looking backwards we didn't learn a heck of a lot. Yet, there is a lot to learn from what happened during the topic ban proposal and arbitration. Look at the behaviours during these processes. We have parties who needlessly trumped up charges, were blatantly uncivil, and continued to edit war... even when they were the focus of arbitration. We also have one side that has blocked mediation or negotiation at every turn. If actions speak louder then words, then the arbitrators need to act upon these behaviours or these behaviours will be even more deeply ingrained once arbitration is over. What is more important here though, is that this cluster of behaviours speaks to a larger problem which is the abuse of process. We have parties who circumvented the rules and principles of wikipedia to "jump the line". All attempts at any form of mediation or negotiation have been avoided.The only goal here has always been sanctions. This was done in a dishonest way, what was advertised on the package didn't match the content inside. This has all been grossly unfair.


 * I admit that I have done wrong, and accept further sanctions. You may consider the proposed sanctions mild, I wouldn't know. My hope here is that the arbitrators find some way to make sure that this future abuse of processes is much harder to do in the future.--scuro (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I request that you don't do significant additions to proposals after people have commented on whether they support or not etc like you did here.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  17:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's an unlevel playing field, LG. I have to respond to many, you have to respond to only one. I've needed more time.--scuro (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The point here, scuro, is that it is extremely bad practice in a written forum such as this one to substantially change (or add to) a question or statement after someone already has answered/responded. The effect is putting words into someone's mouth -- changing the meaning of their responses -- since it appears that they've responded to something other than what they did respond to.  It's like editing a video, putting in a new question instead of the one the interviewee actually answered.
 * Instead of changing the section heading and adding material after response(s) are in, you could add a new section or a new sub-section which can be responded to separately.
 * It's understandable that time constraints lead to errors, but this was an error which should be avoided. - Hordaland (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked back at the diffs but I believe the addition was of the term "gaming the system" to the term "Honesty" in the title. Direct quotations from the "gaming the system" page in Wikipedia were also added. I didn't think this was a faux pas because if you are bending the truth to make your case, you're gaming the system anyways. I was attempting to be more precise but I see what you mean. My apologies to both you and Abd and I'll attempt to avoid that mistake in the future.--scuro (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! But I wasn't looking for apologies, just understanding of the situation.  Achieved.  - Hordaland (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

 * I'm not sure here. Is there another case where this happened, and how did they resolve that issue within that case?--scuro (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: