The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 14:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

The main problem is ownership and the ugly unwikipedian stepsisters that accompany ownership, such as personal attacks and edit warring.


Cause of concern[edit]

ownership issues


Edit warring

In jmh649's own words:


EXAMPLE OF EDIT WAR

A passage and citation is made about the proponents of controversy on the ADHD article and put into the lead. The issue discussed on the talk page was what is the threshold for a true controversy as defined by Wikipedia. It was stated true minority opinion is needed for wiki controversy. [7] [8] [9]


Bad faith

In jmh649's own words:


Personal attack

In jmh649's own words:


Contributor not the content


not answering questions

In jmh649's own words:


False accusations

In jmh649's own words:


Taunting

In jmh649's own words:

Note: in examining this diff, you need to read Scuro's post first.

Attempts to find a resolution

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.

  1. WP:CIVIL
  2. WP:AGF
  3. WP:NPA
  4. WP:EW
  5. WP:OWN
  6. WP:3RR

Desired outcome[edit]

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

That jmh649 earnestly commit to the wiki guidelines of etiquette, especially the tenants of good faith and consensus building.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

  1. --Vannin (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Vaoverland (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

  1. *Kat* (talk) 05:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions
[edit]

Any users may post questions in this section.  Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Q. That jmh649 earnestly commit to the wiki guidelines of etiquette, especially the tenants of good faith and consensus building. - jmh649 has commited to this. Do we need to deal with content issues or can we look for resolution?--scuro (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.


Q.

A.

Response[edit]

{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed.  Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.}

Response to concerns[edit]

What I would recommend is that anyone interested in this dispute look at the all the actual discussion in there proper context. This has gone to a number of other pages already. I would also recommend that people review Scuro's talk page about other editors previous concerns with his behavior. And if editors find themselves interested in ADHD more editors would be helpful on this page.

Doc James (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to outline why I have lost my patients with these two editors a number of times. I have dealt with comments saying that NICE guildlines are "nice" but that since they do not agree with the American literature they "prove that the UK is far behind the USA in medical science" and "that the Unversity of British Columbia in not a world leading research center and therefore their research shouldn't be allowed" or "that since a source is 6 - 8 years out one should be able to use it" or "or that only two scientist agree that ADHD is controversial and it is probably even less then that" or "that Timmins since he is a Scientology and an antipschiatrist everything he publishes even in the British Journal of Psychiatry should be discounted" or " or that since Dr. Barkleys is a world leader in ADHD that one should be able to quote his personal web page or power point presentations and then I get attacked when I ask that people quote his published literature" All this has happened with exclamations that I should deal with content rather then editors. A least three other editors have had this problems. I have asked for more eyes many months ago at the WP Med page. I also brought forwards an ANI.

P.S. I have paraphrased the comments. Doc James (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a comment from the Village pump Scuro started "I see one person trying to demand good sourcing and good work, and another person suggesting "If I do something wrong, then you can go fix it because that is what community means. As far as the DSM-IV goes, anyone who works professionally in this field is going to take the DSM-IV's wording over whatever stupid theory is purported in those sources you mentioned (of which, only Barkley and UCLA has any real heft, I laugh myself silly at some of the stuff that comes out of LNI), because it's what's been pinned down that most can agree to. I agree the wording between "chronic" and "acute" is tricky and you'll find sourcing on EITHER side to claim it's one way or the other. The Mayo Clinic isn't an unreliable source, nor is it's webpage a wiki, and Doc needs to be a little more careful boldly removing a damaged source On the other hand, Doc made an attempt to clean up the article and improve it. Some of what he removed was not anything close to a reliable source. When I look at series of diffs, I see someone trying to improve the article.-- Logical Premise Ergo? 18:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_55#WRT_ADHD_Can_one_cite_web_based_information_from_the_Mayo_Clinic.3F--Doc James (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the ANI "NO Scuro, you make up your own rules and rewrite the guidelines to suit yourself then try to enforce what they don't even say as if they were law, you don't seek consensus you just tell people to seek consensus and claim that anyone disagreeing with you isn't doing so, your frequent threatening of anyone who disagrees with you is an obvious example of your lack of assuming good faith and talking of those threats, hell no you can't back many of them up, maybe in your mind you can but not in reality. Why don't you try to follow your own suggestions and work with us rather than trying to force your own views into articles and shouting and threatening when people disagree with you. Or better still, just leave us in peace to try to improve the articles in question, because any and all editors who aren't scuro are welcome to look at the recent history of the ADHD controversies page and it's talk, and judge for themselves exactly who here is trying to improve the article and who is being disruptive. 92.3.127.176 (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)"--Doc James (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive481#The_ADHD_article_and_Scuro[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Users endorsing this response[edit]

Questions[edit]

Any users may post questions in this section.  Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.

Q.Does that mean you consider these complaints baseless? --*Kat* (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.Yes some are baseless must however are just lope sided and out of context.Doc James (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Q.

A.

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Outside view by Xavexgoem[edit]

Neither James nor Scuro have been communicating with a common goal in mind, and neither have they made any honest effort to do so; or, at any rate, have not made it clear to each other that their objectives are completely different. 2 owners + 1 page = at least 3 attempts at failed DR. It's you twos' prerogative from here on out. Work together; I haven't seen it yet.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed solutions[edit]

This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute.  This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.  

Template[edit]

1) The real issue is "IS ADHD CONTROVERSIAL" We need to discuss this in a formal manner. If someone then goes against the conclusion the get banned from editing Psych related articles. Doc James (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties: Those threads are open in the discussion area. The last response was mine. Do you still want to deal with the issue? Suggestions to do so are on the talk page.--scuro (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2)

Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template[edit]

3)

Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More