Uninvolved folk[edit]

Statements from initial requests by non-parties copied here. —— nix eagle^{email me} 20:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Xeno

Having been watching the ANI thread at the request of Nja247 with an eye to providing a neutral closure, I note that each party has raised concerns as to the various other forms of dispute resolution available. Scuro worried that some venues may be unfair or unfocused and other parties speculated that certain venues would simply generate further countless KBs without tangible results - neither side seems to agree on where to go next. While my closure of the topic ban proposal as unsuccessful with suggestions as to ways forward [1] conflicted with Durova's filing this RFAR, it is my humble opinion that the methodical approach to arbitration is likely to ensure fairness and provide benefits for all parties involved and urge acceptance of the case to bring order to this group of articles. –xeno ^talk 16:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Ncmvocalist

Ideally, if the involved users took the right series of steps and took it to the right venues from the word go, the community could and would have been able to resolve many of the underling issues here. However, as the opposite occurred, and the community will no longer be willing or able to resolve this, acceptance is indeed needed here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unionhawk, I am neither explicitly endorsing nor dismissing your description of this dispute (which incidentally, matches a claim that scuro is tendentiously editing). What I am suggesting is that on at least one occasion, this dispute was brought to the wrong step in dispute resolution - if it was taken to RfC/U at the conclusion of the WQA, or taken there to begin with instead, Durova's response would have been more definitive on whether she felt the sanctions were justified or not. Instead, there were procedural issues, specifically concerning the presentation of evidence (or a lack thereof). See also my comments below. To be frank, I don't understand what (if anything) you disagree with me about? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Literaturegeek, you are misstating my position. I don't believe this is a regular argument on a talk page, and I assume Nja247 picked that up in my response on my talk page. I'm unfortunately very familiar with the behaviour being alleged here - however, that doesn't mean we don't follow a set of steps to deal with such claims. I was able to resolve behavioural issues I've personally encountered (similar to those alleged in this case) through community measures short of arbitration because I followed the guidance I was given; sadly, I cannot necessarily say the same for all of the involved users here (including yourself) who suggest that they are encountering similar issues - perhaps what you think you know is too little, or in this case, simply not enough. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scuro, this request is named in a particular way, so that arbitrators are expected to look at claims about misbehaviour in that area of conflict (the group of articles that are at the centre of the dispute) - obviously, your conduct will be considered, but so will all of the other involved parties listed at the top of this request. As long as involved parties maintain an acceptable level of decorum, they may express their concerns and claims about another involved users behaviour in evidence if they wish, and may respond to such claims and concerns against them if they wish. There are times where arbitration is unlikely to yield better outcomes for the project than if the community is given a/another chance to handle it. However, that is not the case here - rather than have all concerns and claims potentially ignored by the community, both sides are likely to have a better outcome for the project through arbitration, which is at the heart of why I urged acceptance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

name change[edit]

Three of the parties involved in this case have requested a name change. Since virtually all the issues are about Scuro, should this not be a user conduct Arb? If this is mainly about user conduct, could changing the title of the case inadvertently avoid closer scrutiny to the fact that none of the criteria were met for an arbitration case. No party to this case has ever attempted any mediation or attempted to reconcile differences on the talk pages. Ncmvocalist, I do appreciate the logic of your attempt to resolve issues, my concern is that this shouldn't happen in an unfair way. If a band of contributors "railroad" a single contributor who does not share their viewpoint to Arb, with absolutely no attempt at mediation, how can this be justified because they say mediation is impossible? As I have stated before, two wrongs don't make a right. The arbitration committee should rule on the issue of the title of this case. How would this be requested?--scuro (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think since the pages are already created, it makes just as much sense to leave it. The area of dispute is confined to ADHD-related articles. If you really want to change it you may want to ask a clerk the proper procedure to request it formally (proposed motion on workshop maybe). In consideration of your "railroad" statement, and the below, I'll remind you that it was a neutral third party that filed this arbitration request, while another neutral party closed an ANI thread suggesting arbitration as the ideal venue for all involved. As far as I can tell, there have been several attempts at dispute resolution; but if you disagree you can submit evidence to the contrary. –xeno^talk 05:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the topic ban proposal contributor Durova stated; "Nja, my thought on this has already been stated three times: no, no, and no. There hasn't been sufficient evidence for any sanction at all. After two days of requesting the background I finally dug it up myself. This is beginning to resemble a tendentious quest for sanctions. That's more worrisome than the putative disruption itself because it's a step on the slippery slope to POV groups railroading editors who hold minority views. A request for community sanctions is a serious matter. DurovaCharge! 18:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)". The observation of potential railroading is his. I don't see this as a giant conspiracy. Simply that railroading happened at the start, and once the wheels got moving there was no stopping this train. If the name change allows for deflection from the issue of not following wiki policy, then this issue is very important.

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.--scuro (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firstly, Durova is a her. ;) Secondly, mediation is an attempt to resolve content issues - as effective as it is, it frequently is insufficient to resolve many conduct concerns. If arbitrators later find that there is inadequate attempts at dispute resolution, they may either make that as a finding, or close or suspend the case for a period of time to see if arbitration is still needed. Thirdly, the type of editing alleged was serious enough to compel many arbitrators towards accepting this case; if such an allegation is not founded on facts, or inaccurate, then the users making such allegations are engaging in a type of misconduct themselves and would be at risk of being subject to sanctions themselves. It's therefore important to present your evidence and responses to evidence against you, as soon as you can - arbitrators often accomodate reasonable requests for time where parties are away or unable to edit for a period of time. Finally, see also Xeno's comment. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the dilemma: sanctions discussions occur on high traffic admin noticeboards. It wasn't my first choice that they take place that way, but they do. Our default position is one of good faith: that is, the community doesn't accept a proposal to sanction unless it's well-supported. That places a certain burden for evidence upon the proposers of a sanction. And the reality of admin noticeboard format is that there's a rather narrow window of opportunity for doing so. The longer a threaded discussion grows, the fewer people join it. We can't accept a request for sanctions principally on the say-so of a majority of involved parties, because if the community did so then inevitably some instance would happen where a clique of like-minded people abuse the community's trust to shoo away a legitimate minority voice. Arbitration isn't a desirable way of resolving conflicts, but on balance it's better to resolve matters through the vehicle of arbitration than to risk a railroading. That does not mean that I regard Scuro's treatment as railroading: explicitly, I do not do so. What my statements intend is that, within the limited context of ANI and a quick perusal of related dispute resolution, it was not immediately clear whether Scuro was disruptive, or whether an attempt at railroading had occurred. This could occur because solid valid evidence of disruptive behavior had not been brought forth in a clear and compelling manner by those who had the best firsthand knowledge. So please regard me as a neutral party, who wishes only to preserve the integrity of our processes. Durova^Charge! 19:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potential name changes are usually handled at the end of the case, once the decision is taking shape, and the ultimate case scope and the direction of any remedies is known. --bainer (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Major issue has never been addressed-want ruling[edit]

From the Arb topic page [[2]]

The arbitration process within the Wikipedia community exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes that neither communal discussion, administrators, nor mediation have been able to resolve"..."The Committee accepts cases related to editors' conduct (including improper editing) where all other routes to agreement have failed".

Requesting arbitration

To request that a dispute be arbitrated, see the arbitration request page.

Requests for Arbitration can also be used to present questions and requests related to previous closed cases. These include clarification of the intent and scope of a decision, appeals of past sanctions, and requests to amend remedies and enforcement measures.

Cases lacking prior dispute resolution

The Committee will generally accept these types of cases without any previous formal dispute resolution measures being followed:

Reviews of emergency actions to remove administrator privileges
Unusually divisive disputes among administrators
Matters directly referred to the Arbitration Committee by Jimbo Wales

Otherwise, it is expected that other avenues of dispute resolution will have been exhausted before a case is filed—Arbitration is the last resort for conflicts, rather than the first.

None of the prior steps required for filing an Arb have ever been taken. 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 [[3]] and Arb request filing of Scuro[[4]]. This issue has never been informally or formally addressed. What is important here, is that 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 set of rules that no one else does. Allowing this has implications for all of wikipedia:

sets a precedent for future abuse, ie railroading
doesn't allow for contributor to self correct behaviour over time
creates adversarial instead of collaborative environment
creates level of intense scrutiny not warranted under the circumstances
is fundamentally unfair

The arbitration committee should rule on the issue of not following Arb procedure. How would this be requested? Issues addressed should include "is it right to break all the rules" with any Arb case ( and with this case in particular ), the implications of bringing this case to Arb creates, and if a second tier contributor should be judged differently then a first tier contributor.--scuro (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We do not do it lightly, but the Committee sometimes accepts requests for arbitration with respect to unusually divisive or difficult disputes, if we feel that other dispute resolution methods are less likely to be of assistance than a case would. Not all arbitrators offered reasons when deciding to accept the case, but that certainly seems to be the perception of the Committee here. Of course, in any case the Committee can require through remedies that certain dispute resolution processes be pursued, if that is appropriate. --bainer (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has there ever been another case, not of a highly urgent matter, that went to Arb with no negotiation, mediation, or attempt to solve differences on the talk pages?--scuro (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You appear to be suggesting, Scuro, that your dubious conduct on the ADHD and related Talk pages (as well as for example Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)/Archive_3#a_montage_of_correspondence.2C_on_reviews_and_citable_sources, see final comment by JFW, 16 December 2008 ) has not been pointed out (repeatedly) and that no attempt has been made to come to agreement about how to deal with/resolve your conflicts/issues. This is far from the truth. You have many times by many editors been asked to define and specify your issues and/or provide sources for your opinions, but you just keep on complaining (moaning, as one editor put it) and quoting policies/guidelines. At length. Both formal and informal attempts to communicate with you have fallen on deaf ears. It would be appreciated it you'd stop misstating the situation. - Hordaland (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had believed that wikipedia's guiding principles would stop this case from ever getting here and being accepted. I thought there would be at least a few dissenters, how wrong I was. Still, I think this case is a highly unique case with implications for all of Wikipedia. I will provide evidence although it's very hard to keep up to the amount of information generated.--scuro (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

procedural questions[edit]

time constraint

As I understand things the evidence phase of Arb is generally about a week. Within this time frame all parties to the case must provide their evidence and counter anyone else's evidence? Am I right in my assumptions?--scuro (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've not participated in many arb cases, but they often take several weeks, or longer. It is requested you submit all main evidence within a week, and then it moves on to the "workshop" phase (proposed remedies, and the like). During the whole case, any of the pages may be edited, so if new evidence comes to light and you need to add more to the evidence page, or you wish to propose remedies, motions, etc. during evidence phase on the workshop page you are free to do so. This is my limited understanding; someone correct me if I'm wrong. Your question seems to have the concern that you won't have time to process everything - that's usually not the case at AC, it's a slow methodical process and there's no deadline. –xeno^talk 05:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having never had an administrative action taken against me three weeks ago, as of today I have gone through 7 administrative actions within that time, if you include the reopening of Wikiquette alert. I am tired of Wikipedia processes and would like a wiki-vacation. Filing procedural issues, giving evidence, and responding to evidence is an unfair burden within the time frame of a week.--scuro (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I said the "week" isn't a hard and fast deadline. Depending on what kind of wikibreak you're talking about, you may want to ask a clerk or arb for advice on how to proceed. I know in the past if people didn't want to participate in arbitration, or didn't have time, etc., a motion could be made and the case would be stayed. –xeno^talk 05:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1 week was meant to be the ideal timeline for evidence, however, it's generally several weeks, and I expect so in this case (partially due to the nature of the request, and partially because the caseload grows for many arbs); the ancient guidelines may need some updating to reflect current norms. :) Per Xeno, contacting an arbitrator or clerk to arrange additional time before you begin participating may resolve some of your concerns. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have another concern. We have what looks to be 6 against 1 with potentially more contributors joining in the future. The time requirements of each contributor here is uneven. I may require much more time then any other contributor. Would it be acceptable that I respond to each of my detractors separately, and then make my on personal case after I have responded to each of the parties. I would provide evidence against all of the filing parties. A step my step approach would show incremental progress and give me the time to deal with all the complaints and accusations.--scuro (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A week is really a minimum length, the normal length of an evidence phase is usually longer than that. As can be seen here, we've currently got a target date of 12 June to complete the evidence phase in this case. Of course, that's a target and the precise timing will be dictated by circumstances. --bainer (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More questions about time, further worries

I wanted a break, requested one, and took one. I really needed that break. I plan to slowly start gearing up now and fully tackle this about a week after we started. Having looked at the diffs, it's more compelling then I had originally anticipated. Yet, to go through all the diffs, examine the context, and then format this info into a visually accessible style is very time consuming. When I look at all of the evidence presented against me, my mind boggles at how much time it would take to respond with evidence, and info to give this information the proper context. These contributors are prolific in their output, so the task grows ever large as time goes on. I share a computer with my family of five. All are active on the computer, so I can usually squeeze some time out in the morning, at lunch, and then I usually have a large block of time when everyone is in bed. I see this Arb as an uneven playing field, as I saw the request for Arb as uneven also. If there is a time limit, and no procedural order, how is this process at all fair?--scuro (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The arbitrators have a quite organized yet busy schedule, which I think can be found here. You can see that the case is scheduled to have drafting for the proposed decision on 12 June, 2009, and to be resolved on 26 June, 2009. Honestly, that should be plenty of time. You don't have to go through all the diffs, just skim through the main points, and there are just a lot of diffs to support it.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 11:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're not already using it, consider WP:POPUPS, it's an easy way to preview a diff. –xeno^talk 12:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

assumption of guilt and time constraints

I've had several parties in this case state that I haven't responded to issues or questions in a timely manner. The consensus approach appears to look at evidence, even if the accused hasn't had enough time to respond. If we look at the amount of material generated, it has been very lopsided towards the filing parties. I can't keep up to everything generated, let along respond to it. Currently I am tackling one issue at a time. There is no way that I can adequately respond to every issue brought up to date, supply my own evidence, and then respond to what will certainly be new information and new accusations within the time frame given. Instead of weeks, I see such a process taking months. From my perspective solid time constraints with no procedural constraints inherently favours the (6 to 8?) filling party.--scuro (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Less excuses, more finding evidence.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 16:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

respect the individual

I've asked several parties to give me peace on my talk page, and yet parties here continue to post on my talk page about this arb case. Any issue related to this case can be brought to this talk page. Please, this isn't a pleasant process to begin with. Lets make it as civilized as possible.--scuro (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look, I'm trying to make this as easy as I possibly can on you. If I have something that you must know (i.e., shorten your evidence), I'll use your talk, instead of you having to search through all my evidence (which you have previously stated, would be impossible)... Seriously consider what I tell you on your talk page, instead of blowing it off and telling me not to post on your talk page...--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 19:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't believe that I have done anything wrong. If this was a serious issue, I would expect someone other then one of the filing parties involved with this case to tell me so.--scuro (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technically speaking, I was neither the filing party, nor one of the initially listed parties. You have been asked repeatedly to solve the issues brought up in this case, and you have not done that. You just tell people (even if they have about 7 references to prove it) that they'r wrong, and have ownership issues. And, now that this comes to ArbCom, you still think that everyone else is wrong, and has ownership issues. Just one time, take somebody else's advice. It might not be what you want to hear, but what you need to hear.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 17:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(outdent) Honest to Pete, Scuro, now you are being silly. The top of the Evidence page says:

Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs (...). Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning...

You shouldn't "expect someone other then one of the filing parties involved with this case to tell" you, because the authorities here already have told you, in the quoted part of the top of the Evidence page. That applies to you and to everyone else, and you have no right to expect any warning beyond what is stated there. Unionhawk tried to do you a favor and bring your attention to this, so that you wouldn't risk your evidence being "simply removed by the Clerks without warning".

If you don't mind your evidence being "simply removed by the Clerks without warning", then just ignore Unionhawk's kindness. No need to jump down his throat! - Hordaland (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The point of this thread is to respect my talk page. You can discuss evidence length here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence --scuro (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how does one view sanction filings?

I see text which I can't seem to look at. "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..." [5]

Also reference has been made to improper filings against me. I'd like to look at that. I believe it is relevant to this arb case.--scuro (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

time constraint 2

I'm off on vacation tomorrow. Times been tight this week as I had to plan a good deal of my vacation last minute and had little time for wikipedia. I have questions about the proposal stage and am not sure about how to respond. I'm not sure about how to respond to a proposal so I'm not sure exactly how much time it will take me to respond. I don't think I would need more then a few days to respond. My questions will follow this post. I have made two requests to both the drafter and the clerk for extended time but have heard nothing. Time has run out and this will be last post for about 2 weeks. I should be ready to go around July 11th.--scuro (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

responding to proposals[edit]

There have been many proposals made and I haven't seen guidelines in how to respond. I would respond to a good majority of them if necessary. With some I'd like to give input, and with others I disagree with them strongly. Some are kind of out there. Should you respond to them all if you are not satisfied with the conclusions they draw? When you counter a proposal and state facts do you need to use diffs? Also I'd like to make proposals myself. Any guidelines on how to make a proposal? If these questions could be answered while I am away I could respond in a prompt manner after my return.--scuro (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can comment under the "Comment by parties" heading that is present under each proposal. You don't have to comment on everything. You can certainly provide diffs if you want to substantiate your argument, yes. --bainer (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for clarification: ADHD[edit]

The following arbitration-related discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

ADHD arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Scuro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Literaturegeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) diff of notice [6]

Statement by Scuro[edit]

There are several examples of Literturegeek being uncivil during the topic ban proposal. I complained at the time on the project page but nothing came of it. This behaviour continued throughout the whole Arbitration process, particularly in the workshop area. An example was given by me in my evidence section.(In presenting her evidence Literaturegeek is being abusive and uncivil. She states, "This archive is half a megabyte of mostly paranoid obsessive ramblings about conspiracies of scientologists and antipsychiatrists, useless drama, fighting.." or "Manipulative often playing the victim role. This can even deceive administrators and make admins turn on their fellow admins"....) [7].

Further evidence of uncivilness was given under Stephen Bain's proposed findings of fact [8]. (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" [9][10][11][12][13][14])

Currently she continues to be uncivil and personalize the talk pages. [15][16]

Why was her uncivilness not mentioned in the final decision, when her uncivilness eclipsed both documented examples of Doc James and my uncivilness, and this was happening right in the middle of arbitration?
What can be done about this continued problem?

Statement by Literaturegeek[edit]

I shall not be replying in depth to this, perhaps it would have been better not to use the descriptive adjectives, paranoid, obsessive and rambling etc. It is an arbcom so we submit evidence against a person and their behaviour so it is difficult to criticise a person without "putting them down". Diffs, like childish bullshit and other related links as explained earlier, was due to me being stalked for over a year by an editor who was from an unnamed drug company who did not like my edits on benzos. Anyone followed around having contribs constantly monitored and admins doing nothing is going to lose their temper and ask them to stop "stalking me" on a couple of occasions. This is an old issue years old now. These other disputes scuro has found on my talk page are resolved. The NPOV noticeboard regarding antidepressants was not to do with me as I had not contributed to any great degree to the article, that editor just noticed my username on the talk page and gave me a notice and thanked me actually for helping to resolve the issue. If you read this section, Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#npov_fact_check_tag_added, scuro character assasinated Doc James saying he is advocates xyz and also was rude, barking orders at Doc James. I see no change, the article is being treated as a combat mission and this arbcom filing is more of the same type of thing I feel. I feel the editing environment remains a battle ground hostile environment. Even though I have been trying to make compromises on adhd talk pages, still things like this attacking me pop up. I would like to move on from the ADHD articles but feel this is unlikely with the continuing drama, this on this page here by scuro above being one example of hostility.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

Issues concerning behavior on the arbitration pages themselves are water under the bridge. Issues concerning conduct since the case was closed should be resolved by enhanced civility on the part of all concerned; for example, as Literaturegeek acknowledges, some of her adjectives would have been better left unused. It might be best for one or more previously uninvolved administrators to keep an eye on these pages going forward, making sure that the parties to the case comply withour decision, and perhaps bring to our attention if problems involving any of the sanctioned or warned parties continue; but I see no need for further Arbitration Committee action at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like Brad, I don't think any action is needed here. I would urge scuro and literaturegeek and other parties to the case to work together, rather than trying to test or explore the boundaries of the case decision. I note that one arbitration enforcement request has already been filed. If that is needed, sure, but please try and focus on the article content and its sources, and not each other's behaviour. This was made clear in the case, and should be made clear each time further requests are filed. If large numbers of frivolous requests are filed, indicating that editors are looking at each other's behaviour, rather than working on article content, new restrictions may need to be imposed. Carcharoth (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Recuse, as I did for the case itself. Risker (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
During the case, evidence was not presented to demonstrate that Literaturegeek has been incivil to warrant a dedicated finding of fact or remedy. Instead the decision includes a reminder to all: "All editors editing within the [ADHD] topical area are reminded to remain civil". If you feel that someone is ignoring this advice, please report them to WP:WQA, WP:ANI or WP:AE. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with my colleagues that there does not seem to be anything actionable here at this time. — Coren ^(talk) 12:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concur with above. Wizardman 21:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Recuse, as I did for the case itself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No action needed by ArbCom. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: ADHD[edit]

The following arbitration-related discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Case affected: ADHD arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

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

Passed 10 to 0 to 1, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Remedy 7) Editors encouraged
All editors interested in the topic area are encouraged to seek outside editorial assistance (by way of a request for comment, or by seeking input from relevant WikiProjects) in resolving the editorial disagreements relating to the due weight to be accorded to various points of view on controversies relating to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

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

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Hordaland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator, filed first amendment)
scuro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Literaturegeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (filed second amendment)
Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Unionhawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Scuro_placed_under_mentorship
Desired modification (additions in bold):

Scuro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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 (that is, by 15 August 2009), the Committee will appoint a mentor. The terms of the mentorship must cover guidance on Wikipedia's sourcing and citation guidelines and observation of and assistance with effective communication on talk pages, 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. Until said mentor is in place and the terms are approved by Scuro, the mentor and the Committee, Scuro is topic banned from editing articles and talk pages defined in "Topic area" above, broadly construed.

Desired modification, Revised, 10/10/09. If I may:

Scuro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under mentorship for a period of one year. Scuro and the Committee have agreed upon a mentor. Scuro and Xavexgoem shall agree upon the terms of the mentorship and advise the Committee of the terms by email before the end of October 2009. The terms of the mentorship must cover guidance on Wikipedia's sourcing and citation guidelines and observation of and assistance with effective communication on talk pages, but otherwise Scuro and the mentor are free to decide on the terms.

Statement by Hordaland[edit]

The situation on Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and related pages including Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Week (MCOTW) is at present much the same as it was this spring, before arbitration. Scuro talks (and sometimes lectures) about collaboration, true consensus building, a new start/beginning, NPOV, undue weight, the ball is in your court, be willing to come to the table, etc., but in a way that most other editors ~~see as delaying tactics or otherwise not constructive.~~ find unconstructive. When he talks about "majority opinion" and "minority opinion", it is plain that he feels that he represents the majority while most other editors belong to a minority or fringe. Scuro has knowledge and views which I believe should be heard but his ~~methods~~ style of communicating is not conducive to the kinds of cooperation needed to write an encyclopedia. I would like to see him learn from a very good and patient mentor; without that, the situation is again intolerable. Since Scuro states that the mentor (he calls it "mediator") should only be concerned with citations, the requested amendment is necessary. Quote: "By the way I've followed all of my obligations with regards to arbitration, and the mediator was specifically for citations only."

Thank you, Carcharoth, for combining the two requests! - Hordaland (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to Unionhawk, 13:04 UTC. That was nicely put, UH. Surely all will agree with you. - Hordaland (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to scuro, 00:38 UTC In hope that my amendment request could be merged with Lg's, I used the same names as s/he did. I could have and probably should have notified some others of the request(s). - Hordaland (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to scuro 16:00 UTC Scuro has asked for clarification on five points. I’ll comment on the three which have anything to do with what I have said.

1.) "delaying tactics"

I wrote “...see as delaying tactics or otherwise not constructive.” The use of the words “delaying tactics” does, I’ll agree, imply intention. Therefore I’ve struck those words above. See also point 3 below, which is related.

2.) "...style of communicating is not conducive to the kinds of cooperation needed..."

Scuro’s posts sometimes start out on-topic and often end with confrontational admonishments which I, at least, find insulting. Some very recent examples (there are many more in the archives): Diff.Diff.Diff. Diff.

3.) trying to block collaboration --“...would like us to believe that my many requests for collaboration are anything but true appeals for seeking consensus. This is a "bad faith" assumption which has been refuted.”

It's not a bad faith assumption from my side; I believe that Scuro means well. I can’t see that his “has been refuted” link is relevant in this connection. Most of us have many edits under our belts on various topics, in cooperation with many editors. When it is only on the ADHD talk page that we, again and again, are told what Wikipedia wants us to do, it becomes insulting and, finally, just noise. It is my hope that a mentor will be able to show scuro when this sort of thing is happening and how to avoid it.- Hordaland (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment on scuro's comment below, 11:46, 23 September. Scuro wrote: "...and that no other means of dispute resolution or even direct communication was attempted for this specific issue." The specific issue must be that which the two amendment requests have in common: the wish that scuro, too, should welcome MCOTW to the ADHD article(s). Many diffs can be provided to show that nearly all involved have pointed out that resistance to MCOTW makes no sense at all. WhatamIdoing put it well when she said (paraphrasing here) that scuro's reasoning is like having to clean the house before letting the house-cleaners in. It is simply not true to say that no direct communication was attempted for this issue. --Hordaland (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to scuro, 12:12, 25 September. This page is already quite long enough. I see no need for additional input, unless ArbCom asks for it. - Hordaland (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Vassyana, and welcome. You write: "...sit down to talk about things in a nice, calm manner, and get a friendly volunteer to help sort things out." Sounds good. But the first half of that will not work without the last half which hopefully soon involves a mentor. Incompatible styles of communication, talking past one another; it's difficult to try to explain it all to people who haven't been involved. We'll need a "friendly volunteer" for many months; there's no point in yet another bandaid when at least therapy and maybe surgery are needed.

Although I can agree with Scuro that your "apples to apples comparison" is not that great, the effect is that.

If you do decide on a ban, it must include the talk pages and must be long enough for MedCollaboftheWeek to come and work their magic on the article(s). Thank you, - Hordaland (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments to scuro

You write: "...the remedy of a mentor was for citations only." You are, of course, correct that the original Remedy #3 (of 00:03 UTC, 14 July) included at a minimum "guidance on Wikipedia's sourcing and citation guidelines." We are here writing on a page entitled Request to amend prior case: ADHD, and the request regarding Remedy 3 specifies: and observation of and assistance with effective communication on talk pages. This request for amendment is why we are here.
You mention mediator/mediation many times. It is unclear to me if you want both a mentor and a mediator. The mentor is a given, and if the above amendment request goes through, one mentor should be enough as far as I can see.
You write: "I am worried that ... that things will slide back into predictable patterns if we don't do something now." Now there's something we all can agree on. - Hordaland (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hurrah! I feel like we all should go out and celebrate.

Thanks Xavexgoem and scuro. My amendment request still stands (see revised version above), as help with effective communication on talk pages should solve most of our problems. And as Unionhawk put it below: "The effective communication and observation portion should be assumed just from mentorship alone."

Answering Unionhawk. "closure? sure, why not?," you wrote. See above where I've revised the amendment request (Remedy 3). - Hordaland (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by other editor[edit]

I would like to support what Hordaland has said regarding a mentor. I think that a mentor may be able to help with some of the issues and is a step in the right direction. I would support a topic ban until a mentor has been found as has been proposed by one of the arbitration staff. The problem of repeatedly shouting about fringe, minority and "true concensus" (with original research and no citations) and NPOV is really a continuation of the same WP:DISRUPT. Uninvolved admins sadly read these statements when drama occurs and then think I or others are the problem and are "not seeking consensus", which then tends to lead to drama escalating in unpredictable directions.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Unionhawk[edit]

I would have no problems with such additions, however, ideally, the committee will find a mentor before this amendment is added.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 13:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to scuro

Irrelevant. This is mainly intended on... telling the ArbCom to carry out the mentorship portion of the original ruling (which they should do anyway, regardless of any amendment).--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 15:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The effective communication and observation portion should be assumed just from mentorship alone.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 16:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Scuro[edit]

The proposed change to "amendment 1", seeks the additional restriction that the mentor "observe" and "assist" with "effective communication". It also seeks a topic ban until a mentor has been found. Hordaland's justification for the additions is "delaying tactics" and "his methods of communicating are not conducive to the kinds of cooperation needed to write an encyclopedia". Literaturegeek believes that I am: "shouting", "disruptive", and that I continue to create "original research and no citations". These statements make the assumption that I am purposefully posting extraneous material so as to stop them from doing their job. They are also assuming that my method of communication impedes cooperation. These are all assumptions of "bad faith", and the evidence provided does not at all support the false assumptions made. This could be construed as harassment.

Administrator Nja247 has commented [17] on our behaviour since arbitration: "I think it'd be important to stress what you have done above to me, in that you have tried to find a mentor and that you shouldn't be punished for not succeeding, nor should you be punished for Arb's failure to appoint. Further I can confirm that you have in my opinion tried..." Since arbitration I've gone to great efforts to comply with the arbitration ruling, exceeding expections. Several people were contacted, including Nja247 for mentorship. Nja247 had previously filled sanction proposals against me, yet, I asked him anyways because he knew how to cite properly. Arbitration was notified by e-mail before the deadline that a mentor could not be found. With: Nja247's, Horaland, and Sifaka's help, my citations now are up to standard.

I also took to heart the criticism made of me at arbitration that I did not support my claims. A lot of time was spent proofing the article and then indicating in talk perceived problems with bias and undue weight. Threads were tagged with: "resolved", "unresolved", "done", "not done" or "deadlocked", boxes so it is very easy to see where work needed to be done. [18] [19] [20] Fifteen of these threads require action. I did edit the article but found that once again these edits were reverted or altered, [21] even though other editors had approved them. [22] No proper explanation was given. When edits are not respected, and well researched posts in talk get ignored, it seemed pointless spending time in the normal editing cycle. In such circumstances why is it "intolerable" to ask for mediation and to seek true consensus? Their case is totally based on bad faith assumptions, false accusations, and innuendo.

Amendment 2[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Editors_encouraged
My desired remedy would be,,, An editing restriction has been placed on scuro which restricts him from any attempt to stop editors or wiki projects from editing ADHD article or he will be subject to a block for up to a week.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Literaturegeek[edit]

I would like this remedy to be altered to where it becomes a blockable violation to try to prevent other editors, wiki projects (eg wiki med, wiki pharm etc) from intervening. Unfortunately it appears that scuro has been trying to avoid the intervention of wiki projects.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Collaboration_of_the_Week#ADHD_stuff Please also remember to read the collapsed discussion as well and to click on my "diffs" on that page. As noted in previous evidence the claims that scuro "drives editors away" is not a new problem or allegation.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence#Scuro.27s_ownership_but_accusing_oponents_of_ownership Another example of trying to get Wiki Med involved,[23] and scuro's evading a direct answer.[24]--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Things then reached a head when I made one last attempt to get scuro to support a Wiki Med collaboration,[25], Doc James then also asks a direct question regarding blocking Wiki Med intervention,[26], scuro ignors direct questions and simply character assasinates calling us antipsychistrists.[27] I found this insulting as I take as much issue with antipsychiatry as I believe their agenda is harmful and most of what they say is nonsense or out of context and can be harmful to the general public and do not want to be associated with them. Here is direct link which is also given on wiki project collaboration on doc James talk page.[28]

Reply to Unionhawk

I do not mind Unionhawk trying mediation for content issues and regular drama issues and will accept such a proposal after this urgent issue is dealt with. However, I don't think that blocking wiki projects from editing the article is something we can mediate about.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

response to scuro and evidence for arbcom

In the short period since the arbcom ADHD case closed there have been 5 archives on the ADHD talk page in addition to what is on the active talk page. This is an enormous amount of text to expect editors to reply to, it is not surprising with sometimes several sections being created each day that some got "ignored" or the conversation died out, we can't endlessly go back and forth arguing spending several hours or more on ADHD talk pages most nights. We are volunteers, unpaid, have jobs, family and social life to fit into this as well. I personally had to become involved in resolving undue weight and poor referencing format on quinolone antibiotic articles which needed more urgent attention.[29] and [30] (check before and after of articles, major work on refs and content) as well as work on other wiki articles so had less time. I am sure other editors have similar reasons for not responding. Further, much of the disputes scuro raised did not involve edits which I had added originally and I had stated in arbcom that I wanted to back away from the ADHD article. It should be noted that the decision to mark a discussion resolved or unresolved etc is done by scuro rather than someone independent and I felt getting wiki Med involved might help. Having said that if you review the archives there was quite a lot of issues that were resolved, so there has been some progress since arbcom closed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your suggestions are good and I am happy to try dispute resolution and mediation in future. I think a solution is also for scuro to vote to support ADHD Wiki Med collaboration and for us both to agree publicly to be civil. That would really help the situation I feel. I suggest strengthening the ammendments and giving the situation another chance rather than topic ban. We have not reached the stage of needing to resort to topic ban which is an extreme measure. I apologise again for any disruption that I have caused in this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appeal for resolution to scuro

You have appealed for people to talk to you to work things out and I am happy to try and do this. This could all be worked out and you could prove us all wrong by simply voting to support Wiki Med collab and agree along with I to remain civil. Then we can put all of this behind us. What say you? Would you vote to support ADHD article on Wiki Med collaboration project?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes Literaturegeek, I can envision a time in the near future where I would be happy to vote for the article. Scuro the article has been nominated for over a year now and you have been opposing it for almost six months, before I started editing the ADHD pages. The alledged ownership reasons no longer exist as Doc James is seriously restricting his editing on wikipedia and may even have left wikipedia entirely due to drama. No more excuses, no more oppostion, support Wiki Med collaboration please. I am willing to mediate for other issues and I will abide by arbcom rules and recommendations, can you also abide by arbcom which encouraged us to seek input from Wiki Projects by you supporting Wiki Med Collab today. Lets get fresh eyes on the articles by people who diagnose the disorder and treat it. It is all that I ask of you.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have made comments on scuro's talk page with the view of resolving the core issues. I see no reason to continue this conversation any further and fill up this ammendment request.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A positive update

Scuro and I have made significant progresss in resolving core issues, see User_talk:Scuro#What_can_be_done and User_talk:Literaturegeek#compromise. I am pleased to report that scuro has signed up to the Wiki Med collaboration project intervention for ADHD with a vote of support,Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Collaboration_of_the_Week#ADHD. We have also both agreed to ways of resolving disputes and finding middle ground. As the main issue of me filing this arbcom ammendment request was because of an ongoing issue of scuro not involving WikiMed I and this is now resolved I see no reason in persuing this ammendment request any further.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also feel happy that scuro has a mentor now. This should be good when discussing refs and with what is and what is not fringe etc. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Unionhawk[edit]

ARRGH!!! *smacks head against keyboard repeatedly*...

Anyway, I just now realized how unclear my position was on this; we do not need to deal punishment (which ArbCom ultimately does), which will be temporary, and then require more and more of these, we need to work something out. Scuro, I appreciate your offer of you, hyperion, and I working something out, but, honestly, mediation would not have worked at all without at least LG of Doc James in the conversation.

Scuro, just know that pushing that an article not become the MCOTW because there are unresolved issues makes no sense; more eyes, voices, opinions, and otherwise, will help tremendously with these issues. You may as well support it! Collaboration from a WikiProject is a good thing, and I'm honestly surprised that after months and 12 !votes, it still hasn't become the MCOTW.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 03:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Key Points

We need to work something out, not deal out punishment (this one is directed at Doc James and Literaturegeek)
Keeping an article from becoming MCOTW due to problems in it makes no sense; MCOTW≠Medical Selected article (this one is directed at scuro)--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 03:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Side-note

Has scuro (talk · contribs) been assigned a mentor yet? If not, the ArbCom should go about assigning him one.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 03:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good news indeed

It appears that this has been resolved. I would agree with closure.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 17:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Scuro[edit]

The proposed change in "amendment 2" seeks to specifically single out Scuro with further sanctions. Literaturegeek wants that an "editing restriction" be "placed on Scuro which restricts him from any attempt to stop editors or wiki projects from editing ADHD article or he will be subject to a block of up to a week". She is not specific, but one assumes the restriction would require oversight and approval before I edit any ADHD article. Remedy 7 which is titled, "Editors are encouraged", currently states, "All editors ... 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...". Outside editorial assistance was sought after arbitration, specifically for the The social construct theory which states ADHD is fake. The issue was brought up to determine the proper weighting for this theory. [31] The notion that I do not seek outside assistance is bogus. Literaturegeeks reasons that the remedy must specifically refer to Scuro because, "...Scuro has been trying to avoid the intervention of wiki projects for various reasons..." The assumption is that he doesn't want the article chosen, and that he purposely use behaviours such as "delaying tactics", and "ignoring or arguing around direct questions", to achieve his goal. These are assumptions of "bad faith" and mischaracterizations of the truth. They imply and assume motives and actions of someone of poor character. The notion of poor character is further cemented with additional bogus allegations of wrongdoing, and a dredging up of misrepresented past history. As in the past, this approach is inflammatory and destabilizing. Over the half year there have been many bogus allegations, some serious, [32] [33] some recent. [34].

This dispute is all about the nomination process of the ADHD article to MCOTW article of the week. We need to get some perspective here. Comment was sought and I have responded with my opinion in "good faith" for the betterment of the wiki project. It is an action of "bad faith" to believe that there are sinister motives behind my comments. Collaboration means to work jointly with others. This has been my persistent complaint, that even when I do all that they want of me, true collaboration doesn't happen. To invite others to the page while excluding one from the editing process, is not collaboration. Some may feel that this point does not override a larger goal, but my opinion has merit. Collaboration in cases of disagreement require an earnest attempt at reconciliation. Unionhawk "broke the ice" recently. His mediation request did not mention MCOTW. The simple goals of his mediation request, such as no personal attacks, the mediation request was rejected because it was not supported. This dispute specifically started when Literaturegeek personalized the MCOTW talk page by stating, "you seem to really not want doctors or pharmacologists to review the article..." [35] Had she contacted me to inquire about my concerns, she would have received a respectful and informative answer and something could have been arranged. Instead she posted an administrative block warning on my talk page,[36] which was reported to Xeno. [37]. That led to a major flare up with serious accusations made by LG[38]. The thread ends with a plea for Literaturegeek to commit as I did, to strictly focus on content.[39]

There is no reason why we should be meeting again. They should of: approached me on my talk page, sought a third opinion, tried mediation, or outside advice, for any new problem. How would these contributors determine that they were 100% in the right? With all of these blowups they virtually always seek sanctions before the problem has even been discussed. To restrict me further would be to reward those who don't collaborate and use wiki processes in a harassing manner. It would also punish an individual who has made every effort to improve.--scuro (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hordaland and Literaturegeek - clarify these possible bad faith or bogus allegations

During arbitration over 70 alegations were made. (see itemized list after the third paragraph of link) No one had to account for any of the bogus or bad faith allegations made. Abd who alleged that I "drove editors away" never responded to evidence which refuted his claim. LG continues to make this claim. The following allegatons below have been made during this request. I request that Horaland and Literaturegeek substantiate their claims or they recant what has been posted.

"delaying tactics"
"his methods of communicating are not conducive to the kinds of cooperation needed..."
"disruptive"
"trying to block collaboration"
"drives editors away" - (this allegation has been throughly refuted and Literaturegeek is aware of this)--scuro (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hordaland2

My apologies for mispelling your name once more, that really shouldn't of happened. Thank you for striking out the accusation of "delaying tactics".

In this forum communication is happening. Concerns are raised, they are considered, and they are responded to. That is all that I have ever asked for. There are are 15 threads in these links which require action.[40] [41] 8 Threads are tagged with "not done", "deadlocked", or "unresolved"...for easy reference. These threads, along with my many appeals for mediation, a meeting of the minds, etc...demonstrate someone seeking collaboration. You have yet to demonstrate that I am, "trying to block collaboration", evidence please.

The diffs you have provided demonstrate my requests for further action: "...when those who hold opposing viewpoints can agree upon something...Will you attempt that with me...?" and "I would really appreciate it if you folks came to the table". Have I become more insistent with my requests? Yes I have. It's been over a year since I have sought collaboration, and it is only with Unionhawk that I have seen the first positive movement. There is an easy solution here to improve the general decorum. As two reasonable people we could get this done tonight. I pledge to answer questions on the talk page and resolve differences by whatever means necessary. It would be very much appreciated if you could also make that pledge. It would be great to get this behind us and move forward.--scuro (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hordaland3

Yes I agree with you, these Amendment requests are all about my comments at MCOTW. Could you please point out on my talk page, or give a direct link whereby any of you spoke to me, off of the MCOTW talk page, or tried to seek common ground on in any other fashion such as mediation, on this issue? Yes, I agree that there was spirited discussion on the MCOTW, but even there the responses typically were an admonishment of my opinion. Also I asked you previously for evidence of my unwillingness to collaborate since arbitration. Could you please provide that evidence? Thank you.--scuro (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Literaturegeek2

"If you follow the link to the MCOTW talk page and click on the diffs over there you will see a dispute on Doc James's talk page where you tried successfully to delay (and actually stop) the MCOTW. I don't need to submit any more evidence I feel". I looked Literaturegeek....I must of missed it, I even took a look on Doc Jame's talk page. Can you provide a direct link? Also can you provide evidence, post arbitration, for the "disruptive" accusation? Finally, the "driving editors away" accusation was refuted, and Abd refused to respond to the refuting evidence that I provided, even though I asked him to do so several times. If you are making the same accusation again, could you please respond to the refuting evidence given at Arb Com? Thank you. --scuro (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statements by Jmh649[edit]

I am no longer actively editing Wikipedia and therefore have nothing to add that has not already been said.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further discussion[edit]

choosing participants

Why were other involved persons not notified?--scuro (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

looking at past remedies and the current actions of all participants

I may like to add my own amendment request(s), could I simply add them to the other two requests?--scuro (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Yes, you may. But the priority is to enact the mentorship remedy. I'm aware of the discussion here, and I'm puzzled by the claim that you contacted us to tell us you had failed to find a mentor. I've searched the arbitration mailing list archives and found nothing. Did you contact us somewhere on-wiki? If you e-mailed us, was it the mailing list or an individual arbitrator? Could you tell us the date you sent the e-mail (if it was an e-mail), and e-mail us now so we can cross-reference the e-mail address? Carcharoth (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- - - - Just a gentle reminder that I've been given permission to make further amendments, if I choose to do so, before this request closes. I understand that there is a process, and that certain things must get done first.--scuro (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        "been given permission" where? when? by whom? - Hordaland (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Read the two posts above.--scuro (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Sincere apologies, Scuro. A temporary (I hope!) failure of my reading ability. - Hordaland (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Not a problem at all...no worries. Apology accepted!--scuro (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- - I have forwarded the original e-mail back to this address arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org, as I was requested to do. That e-mail was sent on August 8th at 2:57 pm.--scuro (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Nothing yet. Could you send it to my e-mail address, which is listed at WP:ARBCOM (or click the e-mail user link at my user page)? Thanks. Once we are in touch, we can work out what went wrong here. Carcharoth (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - The forwarded e-mail has just been sent.--scuro (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Thanks. Just noting here for the record that after several test e-mails and trying to work out what was wrong, it seems that the problem has been fixed. It was a problem at our end, as far as I can tell, so I'm going to state here that Scuro did send us an e-mail stating that he had failed to find a mentor, and that it never reached us through no fault of his own. As a consequence, the bit about ArbCom needing to assign a mentor should be considered to start now, rather than on 8th August. I've made some enquiries, and I'm hopeful that a mentor can be sorted out. If all the parties to this request could take that into consideration, and Scuro's comment below, that would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Would that consideration extend the date of mentorship paste August 8th 2010?--scuro (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        If the mentorship works out and is productive, the end date is not really a concern. Even after the mentorship ends, you are likely to want to go to that person for advice anyway. It should be seen as an opportunity to be welcomed, rather than a restriction to be ended. I would suggest waiting until July or August next year, and considering this question then. Carcharoth (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a request not to act until the facts have been examined

A plea to the administrators - Can I be allowed to fully respond to bogus accusations before assumptions are made, and actions are taken? There has been a lengthy history of bogus accusations having being made against me. That most recently happend last week when literaturegeek accused me of harbouring a meat puppet. No injunction is needed. Ask and I will do what is required.--scuro (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- What would be best is for you to not edit in this topic area until a mentor is arranged (which should be shortly, as I've noted). I think, from what you've said, that you will agree to such a voluntary restriction, but could you confirm that please? Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I have no problem with committing to a fixed date, say Oct 1st., and would agree to extensions if requested. Is this reasonable?--scuro (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - The need for a voluntary editing restriction of any length should be examined. There was very little editing of the topic pages recently. The issue is whether giving an opinion at MCOTW, where it is requested, is a behaviour that should be sanctioned. Key claims by the complainants appear to be bogus, and an editing restriction also discourages mediation and collaboration by giving the parties who have avoided these processes, what they want. In effect, we have moral hazard. I will not edit until I have been given permission to do so.--scuro (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

serious unaddressed behaviours

- - - - The reason I asked you to confirm your offer of a voluntary restriction was to put things in a holding pattern until a mentor could be sorted out. Hopefully that will happen before 1st October, but if not, then we will take things at that point and see what can be done. Carcharoth (talk) 06:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Missing from the amendment requests, are a number of serious unaddressed behaviours which need to be dealt with. They include the repeated assumption of bad faith, the repeated personalization of issues, and repeatedly making of false accusations. It is my opinion that beyond edit warring, these behaviours have led to virtually all of our difficulties in the collaborative process. Would it be acceptable to deal with the first two amendment requests and then look at these issues?--scuro (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Also I'd like arbitration to consider if this particular Amendment request is a form intentional or unintentional harassment. I'd like the committee to consider this because: i)of the assumptions of bad faith, ii)the reasoning behind bringing such an inconsequential case forward, iii)and that no other means of dispute resolution or even direct communication was attempted for this specific issue.--scuro (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Further, arb com should consider that even when asked to do so, those who made allegations, "failed to even to attempt to substantiate allegations of misconduct levelled at other editors".--scuro (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

they seek sanctions only?

During arbitration there were about a dozen direct appeals at seeking some solution through other means then sanctions [42]. Every appeal was either rejected or ignored. There was not one instance that I can recall when any of the complaints had come to the table pre-arbitration. Recently I appealed to Literaturegeek, "...the behaviour can simply stop if we all commit to STRICTLY focus on content. I commit to that right now... can others not also commit to a new beginning"?[43] She never responded. During this AR Hordaland was asked, "as two reasonable people we could get this done tonight. I pledge to answer questions on the talk page and resolve differences by whatever means necessary. It would be very much appreciated if you could also make that pledge. It would be great to get this behind us and move forward"[44]. Literaturegeek or Hordaland, can you speak to this blanket avoidance of any sort basic agreement, or any form of collaboration?--scuro (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any progress?

It's almost a week since we've heard from member(s) of ArbCom. Is anything happening? Thanks. - Hordaland (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the delay. We were waiting to hear back from possible mentors. Should be an update within a few days. The voluntary restriction from Scuro above should be enough in the meantime. It would be appreciated if further comments to this amendment request could be kept to a minimum. There is plenty here for us to look at when we get round to it. Carcharoth (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vassyana's request

I open to discussion here, I've always been open to any sort of process. But, I don't at all agree that this is an apples to apples comparison. Still, I am very willing to examine things and see where my perspective could be wrong. I am willing to discuss matters in the most civil way, using any ground rules, or any process chosen.--scuro (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wanted to also add that I would enter any such process: unconditionally, with total good faith, looking forwards, and seeking solutions.--scuro (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hordaland quotes Vassyana recently as stating, "...sit down to talk about things in a nice, calm manner, and get a friendly volunteer to help sort things out." I didn't see that post but I agree with it. Hordaland believes that a mentor is needed for me before discussion begins. May I gently remind everyone that the remedy of a mentor was for citations only. Talk to me...it really hasn't been tried in the past. I do so much want to work together, it is all I have ever wanted on the articles. From my perspective we could have great progress quickly. It would be very simple to commit to basic tenants like, commenting on content only and not the contributor. We can personally commit to the remedies of arbitration. That would be a huge first step, and stop most of the blow-ups. From there we can discuss past issues with guidance. I am open to doing this anyway desired, the only thing I would like to see is an intimate conversation. I would like to request that initially, it would be a one on one discussion. It can be with Hordaland, or Literaturegeek, or whomever. It would be my opinion that this option would see the quickest progress in the friendliest manner.--scuro (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes Literaturegeek, I can envision a time in the near future where I would be happy to vote for the article. If we can, lets look forward and get some things done. Is it okay that the discussion is between us only? Can we agree to strictly follow the arbitration remedies, and basic tenants of wikipedia? If we are at that point then we could get off this page and go to med cab.

I can extend a peace offering to to you. At med cab, if a mediator at any time thought that I should nominate the article, I would do so.--scuro (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LG, do you think now is the best time for a Wiki Med community collaboration on the article? I am under a voluntary editing restriction, we are in the middle of arbitration amendment request where we have both been threatened with a topic block, and animosity still exists. Wouldn't a better time be when we are on the same page and the dust has settled? I did offer to put this in the mediator's hands. Is that not a reasonable solution? Let the mediator choose at what point he thinks we should move on to editing together, or if he is so inclined, to request that I sign on right away to the Wiki Med collaboration. If I went back on my word and refused to sign when requested, wouldn't you have excellent evidence of a disruptive editor?--scuro (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My offer to sign on is unconditional, and not restricted by a time limit. If at any point a mediator decides that I should sign on, I will do so. Yes, I agree, trying to solve things on someone's talk page is a great idea for avoiding conflict.

At this point I would prefer mediation. There is a little too much looking backwards happening, and I believe a mediator would be helpful to determine goals and keep us focused on future objectives. But, perhaps you have excellent reasons why you think a talk page would be better. If so, I'm all ears. In the meantime can get two things done now? Lg, can we agree that this discussion is restricted to ourselves, and possibly a mediator. Can we also agree to strictly follow the arbitration remedies and basic wiki tenants?--scuro (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't put words in my mouth. Are you worried that this could all go around in circles for an "unlimited" amount of time, and that wiki med will never be able to fix content disputes that we have now? If so, tell me what you want, and tell me how to get it, addressing my concerns. You can even pinpoint which of my concerns or requests, you believe to be totally unreasonable, and I may very will act upon your observations. I am worried that there are major ongoing behaviour issues that have not been addressed, and that things will slide back into predictable patterns if we don't do something now. I would really like to make amends and put this all behind us. What solutions do you offer, how would it get done, and what are you willing to agree to right now?--scuro (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What if everything I have said was in good faith? I can offer to sign up if that is what stops you from committing to anything. What can you agree to? How do you picture us making a major step forward to collaborative editing?--scuro (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

stop poking each other with sharp sticks

Hordaland, what I have posted recently is a very sincere attempt at reconciliation. I'd ask you kindly from picking at these posts and rehashing old issues. We all know what your proposed amendment states. You believe it to be very necessary, I believe it based on bogus accusations and bad faith assumptions, and without merit. Can we leave it at that? If the administrators believe that my talk page behaviour since arbitration requires further sanctions, then so be it. Carcharoth has asked us not to post further material and I'd ask you most kindly to follow his request.--scuro (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear clerk.

Do not archive this amendment request. There are still important long standing issues that have never been addressed, and at a bare minimum these issues have to be examined. Guidance from the arbitration committee has been asked for, and I await their reply.--scuro (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just want to inform the committee that I've picked up Scuro as his mentor (User_talk:Scuro#Mentorship...) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Update

Since it sounds like this amendment request may be closed soon, I'll give an update. LG and I did make some progress in discussions, but they stopped a few days ago. We have agreed to follow the tenants of undue weight, and we have also agreed that discussion is useful. There still are several significant content issues that need to be agreed to, but more importantly behaviour issues that need to be ironed out. False accusations and bad faith assumptions have been a part of every completed sanction process with these editors, and it was a part of this amendment request. This should not be allowed to happen, and it must stop. This is abuse. I fear this behaviour may continue because neither LG or Hordaland have made a commitment to stop these practices, nor have they committed to focus strictly on content. This should be addressed within this amendment request with more amendments, as I was given permission to do, or it can be done some other way. But it is time to deal with this.--scuro (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

This looks almost stale, I'll be archiving in a day or two. MBisanz ^talk 12:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Please don't archive as we need to look closer into the situation and make further comments. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Noting here that Literaturegeek is happy for the request to be closed. I have asked Hordaland and Unionhawk if they are also happy for it to be closed. Doc James (Jmh649)'s statement indicates no need for a follow-up there. Carcharoth (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

These two amendments should be merged. I've now done that. Carcharoth (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Response to amendment 1 (from Hordaland): I agree that such an amendment (as proposed by Hordaland) is needed. I will propose a motion to that effect ~~in a few minutes~~ after input from other arbitrators and Scuro. Carcharoth (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to amendment2 (from Literaturegeek): This is a problem that shouldn't have arisen. Such collaboration is indeed to be encouraged, but I would suggest delaying such until a mentor is found for Scuro, or an injunction passed topic-banning him until a mentor is found. I intend to propose such an injunction, in relation to the amendment filed by Hordaland. Carcharoth (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies for the delay in getting back to this. The original amendment asked what was being done about Scuro's mentorship remedy, and I am afraid to say that the editors I contacted to ask if they were willing to mentor Scuro have not responded, or are too busy to take this on. I have made one final attempt, but failing that, I am minded to proceed with the double topic ban remedy proposed by Vassyana below. Before that step is reached, could I ask that in the next few days the editors who have posted above make some effort to further refactor and reduce and summarise what they have said, and stick to the focus of the amendment request. Please do not add yet more text to read. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Formally acknowledging here that Xavexgoem is now mentoring Scuro. I am leaving a note at Scuro's talk page to remind Scuro and Xavexgoem of the exact wording used here. Tomorrow, I will try and work out if there is anything else here that still needs addressing. There were, I believe, plans for a WikiProject Medicine collaboration on the ADHD article. Hopefully the parties to this request can move ahead with that if it has not already taken place. It would probably be a good idea for Scuro and Xavexgoem to sort out the terms of the mentorship before Scuro gets too involved in anything related to the ADHD article. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noting here my awareness too of the failure of the mentorship (no fault on the part of Xavexgoem) and endorsing Vassyana's approach below. All comments should now be made at the motions page, not here. There is more than enough text here to read. Statements made by the parties at the motion should be brief and limited and directly relevant to the proposed motions. Carcharoth (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm reviewing this matter now, and will respond later today. FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will note that the extensive wall of text here (and in linked areas) makes it clear that some assistance is required. The ideal solution would be for everyone involved to stop poking each other with sharp sticks, sit down to talk about things in a nice, calm manner, and get a friendly volunteer to help sort things out. This is hardly a one-sided situation and arguing about whose poking is worse is anything but helpful. In my view, LG and scuro both seem to have personalized this dispute, continued derailing discussions with personal commentary, and persist in exagerrating (if not outright misrepresenting) the comments of the other and other editors. I'm inclined to topic ban both of you from the ADHD topic area to allow room for other editors to breathe and work on the topic. I am open to persuasion that both editors can follow the ideal solution I mention above, but I am highly skeptical at this point. Vassyana (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The situation seems to have improved. Scuro has a mentor. I am glad to have my skepticism proved wrong. I hope that this productive trend continues and look forward to the improvement of our coverage in the topic area. Vassyana (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the failure of my hopes for an improved climate moving forward and continuing personalization of this dispute, I have proposed motions topic banning Scuro and Literaturegeek. Vassyana (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Motions to amend Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD[edit]

The following arbitration-related discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Note: These motions arose from the tail-end/aftermath of this request for amendment.

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Active Arbitrators:

Carcharoth
Coren
FloNight
John Vandenberg
Newyorkbrad
Rlevse
Stephen Bain
Vassyana
Wizardman

Inactive Arbitrators:

Cool Hand Luke
FayssalF
Risker
Roger Davies

Recused Arbitrators:

Literaturegeek topic banned[edit]

Literaturegeek (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all pages, topics, and discussions related to attention-deficit hyperactivity, broadly defined, for twelve months.

Support

Sadly, it seems this is necessary to give other editors breathing room. I also expect both editors to take this as a final warning about personalizing disputes and related conduct issues. Vassyana (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Switching to oppose to support alternative. Carcharoth (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC) The length of the ban I could see changing, but a definite break is needed here for both of the principal editors (the warning signs for Literaturegeek were in the previous requests for clarification/amendment and in the case itself). The clerks have been asked to notify those who need to be notified. Unlike at the request for amendment, I am going to ask the clerks to keep a tight rein on this one. Statements will need to be strictly limited in length and focused on the proposal. No more walls of text. Carcharoth (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wizardman 20:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 20:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 22:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose

After discussion with the editor himself (see my user talk) and comments from other editors, I believe this is a much less desirable solution than a general probation. Vassyana (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Switching to oppose, but noting that this may still be necessary if conduct and willingness to work with others does not improve. Carcharoth (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Literaturegeek has stated that she's taking a voluntary break from these articles to focus on other editing. If and when she does return to this area, it will hopefully be after a break that will help her to address some of the concerns expressed. As such, I don't think a remedy from us is needed at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Necessity not demonstrated. --bainer (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abstain

No strong preference between the two. And not 100% sure of the need although I can see why others do support. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 20:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recuse

Discussion

I would request that a clerk hold off an additional twenty-four hours before closing over the initial period to allow time for a bit more discussion to take place. Thank you. Vassyana (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Literaturegeek placed under probation[edit]

Literaturegeek (talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation for one year. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Literaturegeek repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.

Any restrictions imposed under this measure should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Support

Proposed alternative. This restriction is amenable, even preferable, to Literaturegeek (see [45]) and effectively addresses the conduct concerns. Vassyana (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noting the concerns about conduct in other areas, and hoping that this broader restriction addresses those concerns. If any admins are looking for enforcement guidance, I would expect this to be applied to all articles Literaturegeek works on, including ADHD. Carcharoth (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My abstain rationale stands, but move to support. Wizardman 21:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose

I am not convinced that a subjectively applicable sanction is best in this case. — Coren ^(talk) 10:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per Coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The major problems have been an area from which Literaturegeek has now declared she is taking a long break, so hopefully a remedy from us is no longer necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per Brad; moreover if any specific remedy is needed it would be one prohibiting interaction with Scuro. --bainer (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abstain

No strong preference between the two. And not 100% sure of the need although I can see why others do support. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 20:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand the reason why it would be acceptable (of course a voluntary restriction would be preferable to a ban), but it puts more weight on administrators, which could cause future issues. Wizardman 20:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recuse

Discussion

Scuro topic banned[edit]

Scuro (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all pages, topics, and discussions related to attention-deficit hyperactivity, broadly defined, for twelve months.

Support

Sadly, it seems this is necessary to give other editors breathing room. I also expect both editors to take this as a final warning about personalizing disputes and related conduct issues. Vassyana (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The length of the ban I could see changing, but a definite break is needed here ~~for both of the principal editors~~. The clerks have been asked to notify those who need to be notified. Unlike at the request for amendment, I am going to ask the clerks to keep a tight rein on this one. Statements will need to be strictly limited in length and focused on the proposal. No more walls of text. Carcharoth (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If Scuro would accept something similar to the general probation proposed for Literaturegeek, I would support it, but at present it seems Scuro is happy to work in other areas, where (as far as I can see from the pre-existing restrictions from the case) he would not be under any restrictions at all, other than those all editors are subject to. Carcharoth (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wizardman 20:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 20:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 22:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose

This would be punitive in light of the fact that Scuro does not seem to be at fault in the falling through of mentorship arrangements. As suggested above, non-interaction remedies might be warranted, in order to facilitate mentorship going forward. --bainer (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abstain

Not 100% sure of the need although I can see why others do support. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 20:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recuse

Discussion by Arbitrators

Adding a more lengthy comment here to explain to the parties why I've supported these motions. The original case said this: "All editors editing within the topic area are reminded to remain civil in their interactions with other editors, and avoid personalising content disputes. Passed 11 to 0, 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)" Then at a clarification request less than two weeks later I said the following: "I would urge scuro and literaturegeek and other parties to the case to work together, rather than trying to test or explore the boundaries of the case decision. I note that one arbitration enforcement request has already been filed. If that is needed, sure, but please try and focus on the article content and its sources, and not each other's behaviour. This was made clear in the case, and should be made clear each time further requests are filed. If large numbers of frivolous requests are filed, indicating that editors are looking at each other's behaviour, rather than working on article content, new restrictions may need to be imposed. Carcharoth (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)" Some time elapsed before the mentorship issue came up, and it was initially thought that this had potential. However, reviewing User:Scuro/Mentorship and User talk:Scuro/Mentorship, and some of the recent discussions pointed out by Literaturegeek in various places, while there is some potential there, all too often things would get bogged down again with personalised comments about the other editors, rather than focusing on article content. That, ultimately, and the failure to either work together or disengage, is why a topic ban is the option I am supporting here for both editors. If other editors on that article argue with each other and don't work on it productively, then more topic bans might be needed, and even an article probation. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Recusing from all matters related to this issue. I have now returned to activity, but remain recused in this case. While this does not make any real change in the number of arbitrators required to pass the related motions, I note this simply for the record. Risker (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clerk notes

Parties notified. MBisanz ^talk 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As it is currently passing, the Motion will probably be archived sometime around 22:44, 22 October 2009. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When ready for archiving, could a clerk please formally note the brief mentorship that technically fulfilled the conditions of the mentorship remedy in the case, which looks likely to be superseded by a topic ban. Carcharoth (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of parties notified

Literaturegeek (talk · contribs)
Scuro (talk · contribs)

Statements by parties (500 words or fewer)

Statement by Scuro

Where is the evidence presented of my misconduct since arbitration, and justification why this evidence is of such a severe nature that the behaviour warrants a forced 12 month topic ban? Where is the evidence that I have not focused on the article? A lot of my time since arbitration was spent proofing the ADHD article and then indicating on talk page perceived problems with bias and undue weight. Threads were tagged with: "resolved", "unresolved", "done", "not done" or "deadlocked", boxes so it is very easy to see where work needed to be done. Fifteen of these threads require action. It is hard to work on the article when discussion stops. When other editors focused on the article and getting things done, things got done. One can see the good start and then work stoppage if one follows the progress starting here. [46]My work on that article stopped shortly after the filing of the bogus Amendment request. A great deal of time and energy was spent defending myself against a number of false allegations this request for amendment. As part of that amendment request I have agreed to a voluntary topic ban, I haven't been able work on the article. It has been said that we are, "digging claws into each other", but is that true when one gives ongoing evidence of uncivilness and abuse? I have made every effort to make administrators aware of this 6 month long problem but it has all been ignored. The accusations have been extraordinary and frequent, and amazingly they continued here at AR. I understand that arb com wants peace and "closure" on these pages, but I ask arb com to consider the facts and evidence, and not the narrative so oft presented. The cost of community peace should not come at the hands of the unfair treatment of individual contributors.

It is on the mentorship talk page User talk:Scuro/Mentorshipthat I lost my mentor, it is because of this page that there is a motion of a topic ban. Look who "swamped" that page and made mentoring impossible. Look who refused to make any compromise in effort to get the mentor back. This was a beneficial relationship. Am I to be punished because this avenue turned negative because of other contributors? Also take a look at Literaturegeek's and my one to one communication on Literaturegeek's talk page.[47] We had found common ground on 8 key points, but unfortunately she closed that thread as we started to talk about implementation. I have tried very hard here. I have made a significant concession in signing on to med colab, and I have changed considerably in a year. I have shut no doors. Since arbitrators have: a)answered no question, b)provided nothing in the form of specific differentials of improper conduct that wasn't shown to be completely bogus, c) or offered anything that one would normally take for evidence on wikipedia, I request that arbitrators reject this motion.--scuro (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A response to Carcharoth

Could you please provide evidence?--scuro (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Literaturegeek response[edit]

Background

I feel that it is unfair that arbitrators have voted based on no evidence and not waiting for evidence to be presented. What is the evidence for this topic ban? Can some diffs be provided? I made an extensive effort on my talk page to resolve conflicts with scuro.User_talk:Literaturegeek#compromise

Scuro himself said, I am getting somewhere with LG. A meeting of the minds could solve this.

and For instance I have to say that I am impressed with LIteraturegeek's willingness to continue talking and seeking solutions. This is a positive event and I really hope she continues.

and this post, I do want to tell you that I did truly feel that you were sympathetic and wanted to find common ground me. That was appreciated, thank you! :-) If you want to continue with this after the topic ban I'd be willing to do that. :-)

Hordaland also stated this, Meanwhile, L is showing patience worthy of sainthood -- just hope s/he can keep it up....

You both have personalized the dispute and continue to dig your claws into each other. I noted very clearly from my intial comment that I was looking towards topic bans, and why. I was allowing both the mentorship and the temporary impovement to prove me wrong, and indeed, I was quite pleased to be proven wrong. I am equally displeased that my good faith was misplaced and things just started going back to the same old patterns. This is admittedly a blunt tool, but the subtler tools for resolving this dispute seem to be fruitless. Vassyana (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please show me recent evidence/diffs in context outside of arbcom where I personalised things or dug claws in. Nothing could be further from the truth. When I criticise scuro in arbcom that is because this is like an online court where allegations and criticisms are made.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One question

I would like arbcom staff who are voting, to reply with either yes or no as to whether they have read my talk page interactions with scuro?User_talk:Literaturegeek#compromise If not then what is the topic ban based on?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question for Carcharoth

I did personalise things in one post on the talk page of the mentorship and I apologise but I don't think that one post is justification enough for a topic ban. Have you read all of this User_talk:Literaturegeek#compromise? If you have not then I feel that you are not looking at the evidence in context.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An offer

I had since the last ammendment request made a decision to self impose a topic ban or at least severely restrict my editing on the ADHD articles. I have not edited any of the ADHD articles since the ammendment request so I think this is another reason why the topic ban is unjustified. Even though I feel that an injustice is being done, I am willing for the good of the community self impose a voluntary topic ban, which when the voluntary topic ban expires I will then self impose an indefinate editing limiting restriction where I only contribute to the articles OR the article talk pages say one edit per week or one day per week. I am willing to accept recommendations from the arbcom of the nature of a voluntary topic ban. If a violation occurs then arbcom could then make it an enforced topic ban. I at present protest the enforced topic ban as no evidence convincing evidence has been presented to justify it. That's all folks. The END. Signed a depressed and annoyed,,,,--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Xavexgoem[edit]

I was walking a very fine line between Scuro and those opposite of him. It became far far too fine a line to walk. Therefore, I agree with the motions presented here, and likely would have had it been presented when I was still in my capacity.

Lastly: I believe that the action of editors in this dispute are not exclusively designed to provoke, and this was what I was trying to prove to Scuro. That they themselves do not see this in themselves and (particularly) others is imho the central problem here. I believe this despite all other allegations to the contrary; indeed, they reinforce my belief. Take heed. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of all of the editors I was the one who was reaching out to scuro on my talk page making an earnest effort to resolve things. I still see no justification why I should be singled out for a topic ban.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The mentorship lasted nine days, it was supposed to last a year. As I've said before it had already proved to be beneficial. Who knows what could have been accomplished in that year.--scuro (talk) 10:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Durova[edit]

Dopping by after a very long hiatus since initiating RFAR to express full support, in a general sense, for Xavexgoem's judgment. When the Committee heard this case it was already well aware of my opinion regarding mentorship: that it is seldom successful unless it is completely voluntary and not every situation is suitable for it. The Committee had already chosen in several instances to disregard that input, so there was nothing more to do but wait in the hope that events would prove my opinion to have been overly pessimistic. Now is a good occasion to repeat the related concern that Wikipedia has a limited pool of volunteers who have the talent and temperament to mentor well. It is my hope that the Committee will rethink its course before that pool is depleted; there are settings where mentorship can be beneficial, but pursuit of it as a panacea risks diminishing returns. Durova³³² 02:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree mentorship was in this case sadly was a bad idea.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, one individual who did not proactively seek mentorship, juxtaposed with hostile editors who were more interested in playing to the crowd than in fostering improvement, pretty much doomed the effort from the beginning. Durova³³² 04:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yea but your view I believe was formed on admin noticeboard initial drama, when the ADHD editors all piled onto there at once. You need I feel to be in the editing environment to understand what is really going on. You are entitled to your views, just saying that I respectfully disagree.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your belief of where my opinion was formed is not necessarily an accurate reflection of where or how it was actually formed. ;) Anyway, here's hoping this stubborn dispute sees some kind of definitive closure. Durova³³² 04:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well at least there is something that we can both agree to! Closure is what is needed. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"one individual who did not proactively seek mentorship", Durova, I hope that comment wasn't directed at me because it would be a gross mischarterization of what actually happened. I went above and beyond the call of duty to help put that in place.--scuro (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mentorships that have good outcomes are usually established without the Arbitration Committee's direct involvement. In the Israeli-Palestinian disputes, for example, Jaakobou had sought me out for advice for nearly half a year before a request for arbitration named him. By the time RFAR was filed it was merely a matter of formalizing the mentorship and announcing it: mentorship was already happening and he clearly had been prioritizing self-improvement over wikipolitics. He wanted feedback rather than an ally. That's proactive action on the part of an editor. Durova³³² 15:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good outcomes were happening. We got thrown together but found a grove quickly. The conversation had turned to true seeking of help, and excellent help given. I was getting ready to hear his philosophy of wikipedia. There is no reason that this mentorship couldn't have turned into a very positive result, and I was very disappointed when it ended. Again, why I am being punished for earnestly complying with this remedy?--scuro (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(outdent) It's unknowable how things might have worked out in a less politicized environment. One of the downsides of relying on mentorship as an arbitration remedy is that observers usually interpret it as an alternative to more stringent measures. That applies across the board--not just to this dispute. Two or three years ago the way things worked was that editors came to arbitration and some of them mentioned along the way "I've sought and obtained mentorship". The Committee treated that as one positive sign--the editor recognized shortcomings and was willing to work on improving them--and it was up to the editor to demonstrate actual improvement. That focus on the bottom line kept the mentors themselves in the background and free to concentrate on the real priority of actually mentoring. Now look at these two quotes:

(Posted by Scuro in response to the mentor's request to define success in mentorship): Right now what is crossing my mind is that I believe that the amendment request should not be shutdown before some serious issues have been addressed by arb com for the first time. No one should be able to continuously make false accusations and speak ill of you in wikipedia.[48]

(Posted by Literaturegeek in response to the mentor's request for a change of venue): He didn't seem to call scuro on anything. Scuro was bad mouthing, character assassinating editors but when for example yourself tried to defend yourself your actions were labeled nasty. This may have been ok if the mentor was also labeling scuro's distortions and character assassinations as nasty but it seemed the opposite was true.[49]

This is the sort of situation mentors dread because the politics are so close to the surface that the mentor himself becomes a political football. Although not every post carried that tone, the fact that this happened at all (and on both sides) basically meant that Xavexgoem had little chance of success--and if any success did occur it would come at the unacceptably high price of much mud being thrown on his reputation. He was wise to bow out quickly. Durova³³² 16:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contrary to what you stated, the mentor did not make any request of me to define success in the mentorship. In fact Xavexgoem defined it himself this way, "Success (that is, release from mentorship) will be defined by my (Xav's) Holy Decree. Neither Xav nor Scuro will take this too too seriously, and the mentor (Xav) defines what is "too serious" and "too silly", but he is of course open to suggestion". He stated that the mentorship would focus on, "sources and citations, other things that cross our minds". [50] I took Xavexgoem up on his offer. What was on my mind was that abuse issues had gone unchecked for about 6 months and that I had made a request to arb com that I be allowed to add an amendment looking into these issues. Arb com had initially agreed but then wouldn't reply when I repeatedly asked for confirmation. Now look at my whole quote and tell me that this post is about, "tone", or "personalization". It is about an editor begging someone to do something. "...Right now what is crossing my mind is that I believe that the amendment request should not be shutdown before some serious issues have been addressed by arb com for the first time. No one should be able to continuously make false accusations and speak ill of you in wikipedia. I think that holds especially true during sanction processes when people's emotions are already heightened. This happened during the amendment request, it has happened at every sanction event starting with the topic ban. I believe there would be over a hundred examples...possibly hundreds of examples. I strongly believe that it should be addressed now because we are here, it has never been addressed formally, and this has gone on for far too long. I want a solution, and I'm willing to make any pledge, such as strictly focus on content and never the contributor. That is an easy solution if the others would follow".[51] Why I am I to be punished for making a complaint about longstanding abuse? This is a cruel way to deal with a problem.--scuro (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No one is 'punishing' you for making a complaint. A mentor's function is to assist an editor improve their own response to a situation regardless of how fair or unfair the other factors may be. It was the focus on external factors that got things off on the wrong foot. Now you assert that the resolution is cruel, but really the bottom line here isn't anyone's feelings: it's an encyclopedia. For whatever reason, things sank into a quagmire and editors developed more interest in the quagmire than in the shared goal of presenting a good reference source to the public. Durova³³² 21:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The point here is that I will be punished for constantly trying to get anyone's attention about ongoing abuse. Cruelty is not about my "feelings". I like Wikipedia's definition which is, "indifference to suffering". 6 months of no action is suffering. Yes, this is an encyclopedia, but that does not excuse indifference to abuse. That was the really frustrating part, that I did what I supposed do, and made many administrators aware of this, but nothing got done.--scuro (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remedies at Wikipedia are preventative, not punitive. Cruelty normally carries connotations of indifference to unnecessary suffering. See also altruism and utilitarianism, particularly "the greatest good for the greatest number of people" and compare to the 30,000 page views that ADHD received in September.[52] If one individual chooses to frame the discussion in terms of "abuse" and "suffering", thinking only of himself/herself, while tens of thousands of other people read an inferior article as a result, then the applicability of the word cruelty may be debatable. We all have our strengths and our weaknesses. Perhaps when a subject hits so close to home that one's heart is on one's sleeve about it, then it would be better all around to work on some of the millions of other articles. Durova³³² 22:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are we really going to talk about if I am emotional, and my deep attachment to the ADHD article? Has anyone noticed that I don't care about that article anymore? It's been a month since I have been voluntarily topic banned and that doesn't appear to be stressing me out. There are no repeated messages to administrators about this elastic topic ban. No messages at all, once I discovered that messages are often ignored. In fact I have probably made more edits to the Abousfian Abdelrazik article this year then I have to the ADHD article. Show me how the ADHD article is "inferior" because of me. Take a look at that article a year ago and now. There is very little of what I added to that article still on it. What I have cared about since the topic ban proposal is that the abuse stop. Any editor will make mistakes under constant abuse. I think it is cruel when people misinterpret many things about you and then punish you for what they believe.

So how about we switch gears and look at the breakdown and why we have topic ban requests. This is about a mentor who quits because he, "Can't deal with this".[53] This was the blow-up that proved to administrators that things can't be worked out. Take a look at the talk page where it all fell apartUser talk:Scuro/Mentorship. Can you tell me when you first notice frustration with Xavexgoem, and which posts probably made him quit? Then can you tell me who made an effort to try and resolve differences? Now tell me why am I to be topic banned? And finally, tell what action of mine since arbitration, will you prevent from happening in the future with a topic ban?--scuro (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Hordaland[edit]

Undue weight? I think so. It looks to me as though ArbCom feels a need to balance things by applying exactly the same remedy to both. Literaturegeek does at times hit "save" much too quickly, but I hardly think s/he needs a whole year to calm down. - Hordaland (talk) 07:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitration remedies are admittedly blunt tools with long durations. A three month sanction would be "short". One year is the general standard default length and also typically the maximum (though ArbCom has shown an increasing willingness to leave periods indefinite). The equal weight of the sanctions is based on the observation that they have both personalized this dispute. Others I would expect to take a more nuanced view share this opinion, which helped convince me that this course was necessary. It may be of additional interest to you that Literaturegeek approached me on my talk page to discuss the possibility of alternate sanctions. I'm quite open to the discussion. There is the possibility that something could be worked out that LG is willing to accept and that the length of the sanction could be reduced after demonstrating good work and an appeal. Vassyana (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Jmh649[edit]

LG is a good editor. He writes well referenced material on a variety of topics. He has contributed significantly to Wikipedia. We have not always agreed when we have crossed paths and have had some harsh words at times but LG always supported his text to verifiable sources. And this is the foundation of Wikipedia. In deciding this case I think the edit histories of these two editors need to be taken into account.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LG is a he? 8-| --scuro (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Doc, although you, I and David bickered back and forth about refs we continued to make good daily progress and our harsh words were from wikipedia's perspective worth it in my opinion because we ended up with a fairly balanced and comprehensive article on the adverse effects of quinolones compared to the previous version which was a major POV poorly reffed and original research nightmare. Idealy though it would have been better if no harsh words by either of us were said of course.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Skinwalker[edit]

Please do something about Literaturegeek's behavior in general. His problems with ownership and personalization of issues are not limited solely to ADHD articles and have continued for some time.. See this current SPI request from three days ago, where LG accuses pretty much everyone who disagrees with him on anxiety and benzodiazepine-related articles of being sockpuppets of each other. He persists in arguing a connection[54][55] between the accounts even after a checkuser has told him[56] that there is no overlap. Skinwalker (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I requested earlier today that the topic ban is changed to a block based behavioural remedy i.e. regarding civility and losing my cool which would cover all of wikipedia. Your post skinwalker should help me in obtaining that goal. That sockpuppet submission was in good faith and if you read the evidence there were good grounds for suspicion and still unanswered questions. The user which prompted my sock report actually edit warred on the article and was aggressive for no apparrent reason,Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#benzodiazapine_drug_misuse.2C_lack_of_credible_sourcing I offered to compromise with him on here,[57] It was nothing to do with ownership. I could comment on your motives for this posting but I shall refrain.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to point out that after skinwalker agreed with scuro on admin noticeboard (during initial drama) that I was antipsychiatry, I instead of losing my cool or personalising tried in vain to reach out to skinwalker on his talk page.[58] I think that my response in that situation was admirable.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was that the reaching out where you said "When I lose (my temper) i go much too far"? Yep, that's the diff. I didn't interpret that effort as anything friendlier than a veiled threat. Skinwalker (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I explained that as you know with this posting "Actually no I wasn't, I was actually doing the opposite. I wanted to avoid coming across as holier than thou and wanted to acknowledge that I have my faults as well. You are free to misinterpret it though. I made the post above to try and seek dispute resolution. I don't think that this is possible." and A hint that I am being truthful is the title of this section. (which was called "reaching out") It was refering to drama on wikipedia eg admin noticeboard, losing one's cool, making a mountain out of a mole hill etc, it was not meant to make you feel frightened or threatened.

Now can you explain why you appear to be trying to harm me and assume bad faith and quoting out of context my post when all I have ever done is try and avoid a fight with you?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forgot to address evidence against me

This is the third time over the past 3 or 4 months that skinwalker has made such postings unprovoked by any interaction between him and I onto projects frequented by admins, I wish it would stop, it is beginning to feel personal. Skinwalker implied that I used (or abused) the sockpuppet process in bad faith as part of an ownership agenda against to quote "accuses pretty much everyone who disagrees with him" to assumedly get rid of anyone who opposed me. This is easily proven wrong. This claim can be dismised because I only had 2 very short lived disagreements with two people, mutual monarch and the most recent person Skrewler, out of the 7 sock accounts I submitted for investigation (hardly pretty much everyone who opposed me), not including the alledged sockmaster who I did have a well known content dispute with, which was resolved. With both mutual monarch and Skrewler other editors on the articles opposed their deletions or edits as POV and reverted them, one of whom edit warred over it a few days ago. They were also very short episodes of disagreement on talk pages, so I certainly did not need to go to the extreme length of filing a fake sockpuppet investigation to "get rid of them". Seeing as sock investigations are done via IP address information, it makes no sense why I would file cases knowing they would back fire on me. Why would I do that? I am not into self harming. I also tried to work out a compromise with them, so hardly I am controlling content.[59],Talk:Panic_disorder#Medications_section_on_panic_disorder_copied_from_talk_page Mutual monarch was a minor dispute lasting all of a few days and happened 3 months ago so is very old.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Goodbye arbcom[edit]

I am leaving (already have left) ADHD articles most likely forever, certainly for a very long time anyway. I will be reverting anything related to ADHD from my talk page, time to move on, I shall not be back here at arbcom. It is too stressful and I regard wikipedia as a hobby, not a chore so time for me to move on. It is time for other people to deal with ADHD drama. I am beat and tired. Lots of work needed to antibiotic articles in peace and quiet. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.