Revision as of 18:40, 21 May 2009

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Requests for arbitration

Giano II Wheel War

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 13:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

Listed by the filing party

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Moni3 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Listed by Jehochman (talk · contribs)

• Prodego (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• David D. (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• FlyingToaster (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to be addressed in a separate case if not resolved by ongoing discussions

Listed by Wizardman (talk · contribs)

• Xeno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Listed by Tznkai (talk · contribs)

• Tznkai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Moni3 notified at . I will also inform all editors named in my statement of the existence of this request.  Sandstein  14:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The dispute arises from the events detailed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Giano II blocked for civility issues; pertinent discussion is also at User talk:Moni3#The Giano matter.

The case involves wheel-warring (and, at , threats of blocks) among administrators. Per WP:Arbitration, the Committee will generally accept unusually divisive disputes among administrators without any previous formal dispute resolution measures being followed.  Sandstein  21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Flying Toaster RfA (this link will need to be updated when the thread is archived)

Statement by Sandstein

I ask the Committee to examine my conduct and that of my administrator colleague Moni3 in the dispute surrounding the blocks and unblocks of Giano II (talk · contribs) at the ANI thread linked to above.

At 20:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC), Prodego (talk · contribs) blocked Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for three weeks for incivility. Extended discussion at WP:ANI ensued, where the preponderance of opinion – as I read it – supported the block. At 00:32, Giano II declared at that he has left the project, and has not edited since.

At 04:58, David D. (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unblocked Giano II. This action was generally criticised in the ANI discussion, which led to David D. stating at that "if anyone wants to revert my action they are free to do so.". Previously unaware of the dispute, I reinstated the original block at 09:12 after reading the thread, explaining why I did so at . At 11:36, David D. confirmed at that, having given his consent to being reverted, he would support my re-block.

At 12:20, Moni3 reduced the block duration of Giano II to 24 hours, explaining in pertinent part at that "I know it wheel wars, but I don't care. Seriously, folks. Get your priorities in order. Content is first always, and it makes people lazy to make decisions based on a string of bad words." She later added at that "consensus doesn't always rule over what is just and right."

After having asked Moni3 to undo her action (), which she declined (), I reluctantly ask the Committee to intervene with such remedies as it may deem appropriate, because it has repeatedly and rightly held that wheel warring is unacceptable, particularly when – as here – the administriative actions at issue are, by the wheel warrior's own admission, contrary to consensus.

I propose that the scope of this case (and any statements below) be limited to the administrative actions of Moni3 and I, and not also to the drama-ridden dispute between Xeno (talk · contribs) and Giano II which triggered these actions.  Sandstein  13:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment with respect to Jehochman's proposal to expand the scope of this case

I recommend to keep the scope of this case limited to the blocks and unblocks of Giano II. I am ignorant of any issues with FlyingToaster (talk · contribs) and do not see how he or she is relevant here.  Sandstein  14:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

The original block of Giano was excessive, punitive and wrong. I ask the committee to look into the entire matter of all those administrators who either blocked or unblocked Giano.

I also ask the Committee to look into the very serious allegations that User:FlyingToaster lied during her recent RFA. She claimed to have written a number of articles. Upon inspection it was found that many of these articles were either plagiarism or copyright violations. These accusations are extremely serious and the community is unlikely to resolve them because of deep divides and a lack of a de-sysopping process. The dispute over FlyingToaster's RFA precipitated Giano's excessive response. It does not make sense to arbitrate the reaction while ignoring the underlying dispute.

As for Xeno, that matter seems to be resolved and does not require arbitration. Xeno has apologized to Giano. I am very unclear why some people refuse to acknowledge that the block of Giano is no longer preventative. It seems that there is a strong element of retaliation against Giano for bringing the improper editing of FlyingToaster to light.

Thank you. I will add FlyingToaster and some other parties to the list. Jehochman 14:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrators are expected to familiarize themselves with the full facts of a matter before using tools. The sequence of events was that FlyingToaster had an RFA a few days ago. Giano raised concerns. Upon closer inspection, these concerns were found to be colorable. Various editors dismissed the concerns, causing Giano to become upset. Xeno then unwisely and unwittingly baited Giano very severely. Giano, predictably, exploded. The usual block-unblock cycle ensued. It would be foolish to only look at the last step in this closely related chain of events. Jehochman 14:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wizardman, the wheel warring can be dealt with by motion, I believe. A stern warning or temporary desysop should suffice. The matter of FlyingToaster might be premature because there is a good chance she may resign. However, if she does not, we will be back with that matter in a few days. If you go forward with a case rather than a motion, you'd better include the entire dispute. Jehochman 14:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Xeno

As the one who set this snowball rolling, I'm obviously feeling quite silly right now for this whole mess I inadvertently created. It's clear there's strong feelings about the blocks/unblocks/etc. I urged unblocking and took responsibility in part for Giano's comments made at me, thus the block no longer seemed necessary. I think all the administrators were acting in good faith and urge rejection of this case; imo no good can come of it. –xeno 14:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Juliancolton

What is the focus of this case? Giano's block? FlyingToaster's RfA? I'm confused... –Juliancolton |  14:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Response by Anonymous Dissident

See Sandstein's clarification at 14:18. —Anonymous Dissident 14:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ottava Rima

All blocks on Giano lead to admin fighting, wheel warring, and back and forth with the block buttons. If Giano sneezed, he would probably be blocked and have this situation happen. So, lets ignore what caused the situation. Instead, everyone should focus on the actions being 100% the same as every other time Giano is blocked. Is Arbitration needed? No, because ArbCom cannot affect the mindsets of tens of thousands of users that will play this very same role sometime in the future. It is inevitable. ArbCom should spend their time trying to stop things that they might actually be able to change - such as the Earth orbiting the sun, gravity affecting the planet, or that whole wacky "season" bs that we keep going through. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by TreasuryTag

I urge the Committee to reject the case, admonish those wheel-warring, re-instate the block for the ~20 days remaining (since the consensus seems to tend that way), invite Giano to return to active, co-operative and friendly editing once the block expires, and instruct everyone to accept FlyingToaster’s statement that she accepts she did some wrong unintentionally and means to fix it, and move on swiftly. Too much drama already. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Stifle

As one of a very few users whose block of Giano has not led to an unblock or wheel war, I recommend rejection of this as it would serve to generate exponentially more heat than light. Giano is gone, some users have learned more about WP:C, and the wheel-warring, though tiresome, is moot. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Anonymous Dissident

Giano's gone, so this is flying on its own steam for no particular reason now. I also cannot comprehend the addition of FlyingToaster to the involved parties. This case concerns a wheel war over the blocking of Giano II. You may just as well add my name to the involved parties as the bureaucrat who closed the RfA. The line has to be drawn somewhere. —Anonymous Dissident 14:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Response from TreasuryTag

(edit conflict) I agree that FT and related parties should be omitted, however, re: the "retirement" of Giano, I understand that he has permanently resigned from Misplaced Pages numerous times before, scrambling his password on more than one occasion. His announced departure this time shouldn't be treated as 100% gospel. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Giano will probably come back. But I doubt if the situation will re-ignite when he does. —Anonymous Dissident 15:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Philippe

Giano's behavior was extreme, and the initial block was appropriate, in my opinion. Where we began to veer off the rails was the unblock, then reblock... it seems that perhaps the committee should step in and - yet again - make clear that we as a community will not tolerate incivility (in any of its forms) but will tolerate continued incivility even less. We also will not tolerate wheel-warring. It's sad that the committee has been put into this position again, but it appears that the lessons have not been learned. I urge the committee to accept the case and examine the behavior of those modifying the original blocks outside of consensus, as well as the behavior that precipitated this situation. - Philippe 14:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher

Under Arbcom convention, established by decisions taken and cases rejected, the second action does not constitute wheel-warring, no matter whether it was done with or without discussion or consensus, it takes 3+ actions to make a wheel war. So, the reblock by Sandstein was potentially a wheel war, but since David gave his assent, it is not, and the counter resets. Since the block reduction by Moni was the second action in the new series, it was not wheel-warring either. Therefore, this was all perfectly acceptable and non-sanctionable admin behavior, according to Arbcom precedent. Just an ordinary day around the water cooler, nothing to see, move along.

Statement by Aitias

After Giano II (talk · contribs) had been blocked by Prodego (talk · contribs) there was strong endorsement of that block on WP:AN/I, cf. . More important, there was extreme opposition to a block reduction, cf. and nothing near a consensus for it — much the opposite. Despite this obvious consensus for the block and the even more obvious consensus against a reduction/unblock, Giano II (talk · contribs) was unblocked by David D. (talk · contribs) — this already constituted wheel warring, and, more important, was against consensus. Therefore the block was reinstated by Sandstein (talk · contribs) in agreement with the unblocking admin. Again, this reblock was heavily endorsed, cf. . Then, Giano II (talk · contribs)’s block was reduced to 24 hours —again, despite the obvious consensus against a block reduction/unblock— by Moni3 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): This clearly constitutes an egregious instance of wheel warring and was both completely out of process and acting against consensus. Therefore the original block should be reinstated by motion as soon as possible and a case should be accepted in the light of the egregious wheel warring. — Aitias // discussion 15:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SoWhy

The administrative conduct regarding this issue should be looked into but the FlyingToaster affair is nothing that fits into this situation at hand. The dispute between Xeno and Giano II was not about that, nor was any other discussion at ANI. I suggest to Jenochman and those who want the FlyingToaster situation at ArbCom to untangle it from this case and create a new request. After all, it's not only Giano II who raised those concerns and if they should be looked into, they should be considered separately. Everything else would be confusing. Regards SoWhy 15:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Minkythecat

The FT affair is entirely relevant for this, and should be investigated; not purely for the plagiarism, a separate issue, but because it was the trigger point for the whole blocking debacle.

Giano made his views well known on FT at BN. Prodego asks Giano to be civil - not deeming that comment to be worthy of any action. Xeno then posts a taunting message aimed at Giano over a page Giano had re-written . Giano replies, civilly .

ONE minute after posting the above taunting Giano, Xeno started making a series of edits to the page in question, starting from . A page he hadn't contributed to previously. Some of the edits made the quality slightly poorer.

This, in my opinion, was nothing more than a deliberate, cynical attempt to bait Giano, knowing he'd react. The admin who banned him? Prodego. The whole sequence reads to me as either a concerted stitch-up or Xeno deliberately taking advantage of that "warning" by Prodego.

To state the FT saga on BN had zero to do with this is totally and utterly wrong. Xeno clearly baits Giano over a page, then makes edits to those page - most of which have been reverted.

If this whole issue is looked at, then the entire issue needs looking at - those particular comments on the FA discussion clearly paint a different picture to the "wah, nasty Giano abused me" story being presented by some. I do not believe the wheel warring can be examined without also examining the underlying cause for the block in the first place - namely the activities of Xeno and Prodego stemming from the FT thread on BN.Minkythecat (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cube lurker

I think it's likely that the FT situation will need Arbcom resolution. However I think the course of wisdom would be to handle the cases separately. This case should start with the interaction between Giano & Xeno, the original block, and the later admin actions. This should be a nice clean case with a limited set of evidence. The FT situation is likely to be more complex and messy. For clarity that key issue should be handled separately free of the side conflicts that spun off.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

I originally thought and did decide that this was too controversial to join in discussion. However I've reconsidered and believe that while the ethics of the FT should not be acted on with this thread the committee should review them and the subsequent actions of those involved. If this thread is about wheel warring then there should be clear avenues to find out the cause. unfortunately that roots back to FT. Gotta look at the whole picture to understand things, sometimes just looking at whats convienant or on the obvious surface can lead to different insights. Xeno admitted they did things that was not Kosher and obviously Giano reacted so why add more fuel to that spent fire? Anyone rememebr high school algebra, how that one variable could flip an entire problem on it's head and make it a completely different issue, that's what we're dealing with here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by X!

I'm not sure why FlyingToaster's RfA is being brought up right here right now, but I'd like to say that this case is for Giano only. As for whether the original block was appropriate, I think that it was entirely appropriate. It doesn't matter how much content one can produce, if they're attacking other editors, then a block is needed. When David unblocked Giano, there was strong support for the block at ANI, but he still unblocked. After being reblocked, Moni reduced it to 24 hours again going against consensus at ANI. This is wheel warring. What else could it be? In conslusion, I would strongly urge the arbitrators to accept this case. This is just disgraceful, and higher action is needed.

Statement by Phil Sandifer

As the adage goes, the only consistent element in Giano's troubles is Giano.

Perhaps the arbcom will, for once, not be so cowardly as to ignore this fact, and ignore the shocking legacy of personal attacks and abuse from Giano, and to deal with the root problem that causes these cases to recur.

But I do not have high hopes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Tznkai's wise invocation of belling the cat, the arbitrators ran for the position of cat-bellers, and were elected by the community to bell cats. Belling this particular cat is as simple as typing a few words into a web browser. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

I may or may not muster the energy to say something more useful, seeing as I was one of the early responding administrators who tried to resolve this situation peacefully, but for now I have only this to say: Ban the lot of us (including the all of us making statements) for treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground. If this gets any more stupid before I get back to the computer, I may well turn in my bits. In the mean time, someone please:

• Fix the BLP that started this mess. (refs, copyedits)
• Work on a plagiarism standard for the tangentially related but still important issue.
• And the other boring low drama work that no-one else (myself included in this case) will do.
• Anyone who has a brilliant solution to this mess, please read bell the cat. Its informative to how you look to others.

Also, next time anyone wants to step in and block or unblock in something that looks like it could be a wheel war, it is a wheel war. Don't do it, it isn't worth it. Exhaust every other tool in your disposal, call in favors, e-mail the damned committee. --Tznkai (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

One more important point. We (the administrators) are a team damn it! Lets act like it for once!

I fully stand behind everything Cenarium said, and MastCell's analysis below.--Tznkai (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Pastor Theo

As someone who participated in the AN discussion of this case, I seem to recall that consensus was overwhelmingly supportive of the blocking action only among the admins. Non-admins who offered their observations pointed out a double standard – that the non-admin Giano was being blocked while the admin Xeno was not being blocked, even though both behaved poorly in this situation. The division between admins and non-admins is amplified by the statement prior to mine, where admins are defined as “a team” – does that make the non-admins spectators in the cheap seats? Aren’t we all on the same team?

It also needs to be pointed out that Xeno specifically requested that Giano be unblocked while this drama was playing and that he has repeated the request here. I would second that motion and ask that this case be dismissed as a misunderstanding that went out of control.

As for Flying Toaster – that’s another case. Pastor Theo (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

Respectfully request removal of FlyingToaster's name. At the present time she is working hard at reviewing and correcting the citations and related text at articles she created before her RfA. Getting named in a tangential arbitration would likely slow down that effort. If a case is going to arise over her RfA, would be much better all around to request it separately. Durova 16:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cenarium

This situation reflects again a persistent disorder affecting Misplaced Pages administration, instead of trying to compromise and find amicable solutions, or simply dropping the matter when nothing positive for Misplaced Pages in one sense or the other will come, it's infuriated and artificially made worse. Another related problem affecting Misplaced Pages administration is the "on diff" enforcement policy, that is, sometimes policies are enforced, e.g. a block of an editor, based on a single diff, without consideration and attempt to resolve the broader situation to prevent continuation of policy violations, and analysis of the behavior of other parties. Some would be surprised to see that it can work, if tried, and can have better results, especially in the longer term. Yet another problem are some users who comment at ANI without analyzing the situation, or with comments which cannot generate a consensus (to put it mildly). I heard for example "good block", and I wonder how a block can be good, especially when it's against a productive article writer, a block may be "within admin's discretion", "necessary in this case", but not "good". As for the unblock, I would say it was unwise, but not done forcefully, as the unblocking admin consented to be overturned, which happened. Now, for the block reduction, Giano is retired, so what's the point to have him blocked, or not ? If reimplemented or made longer, would it be purely for the sake of blocking or for, then, a virtual enforcement, or as punishment ? The reduction can be understood, as a courtesy or sympathy from another article writer feeling Giano was treated unfairly by Xeno, and that the block was excessively long. Should really Moni3 be pursued overt this ? I thought we had no military rules over here, can't we be done with it, now ? It's certainly not a wheel war, at this time, requiring arbitration. I don't see what can be achieved through the acceptance of this case, so I urge rejection. Cenarium (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

Please don't take this case. No good will come of it. Enough damage has been done. Sandstein, Moni3, and David D. are all good admins. If a case is opened, it will involve a lot of verbiage and no more than admonishments, at most. In a best case scenario, it will be a distraction. In a more likely scenario, we'll lose or alienate more good people. If you want a technical rationale for declining it, you can use Thatcher's. MastCell  17:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Sceptre

Prodego should've really known better to block Giano before bringing it to the community first. Xeno should've known better not to poke the bear. A day might've been warranted, but three weeks is excessively punitive. Sceptre 18:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 2}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/0/0)

• Accept on the wheel warring matter. It sounds like Jehochman wants the FlyingToaster situation added into this as well, and I don't think the two issues have enough in common to warrant being mulled together, so I wouldn't have that in the case's scope. Wizardman 14:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept per Wizardman.  Roger Davies 16:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A Man In Black

Involved parties

• A Man In Black (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Rootology (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• I will offer to transfer any comment he has from his talk page to here. rootology (C)(T) 05:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Given the nature of this admin's behavior over time, and over the course of years, I believe we're well past this point. All of our administrators, functionaries--all of us, up to and including Jimbo--must and will be governed by the same standards, or our standards are meaningless. The standards of behavior, especially for anyone "admin or higher" are judged against today's standards, which have been the same for some time. Whether we became admins in May 2009 or May 2001 we are bound by the same standards, and AMiB is well beyond the scope of our acceptable standards. I believe this request is wholly within the AC's purview to accept and process either as an expedited motion(s) or as a full case.

Statement by Rootology

A Man In Black was blocked today for his 12th incident of blatant edit warring since his 2005 successful RFA. He has an extensive and long-term history of edit warring, which is unbecoming of an administrator. Reviewing his block log, which I never actually noticed before tonight, I count 12 valid blocks imposed by other administrators due to his ongoing misbehavior:

1. July 17, 2006: 3RR; 2. December 30, 2006: 3RR; 3. February 9, 2007: 3RR; 4. February 28, 2007: 3RR; 5. March 5, 2007: 3RR; 6. March 9, 2007: 3RR; 7. March 12, 2007: 3RR; 8. March 30, 2007: 3RR; 9. November 19, 2007: edit warring; 10. September 13, 2008: 3RR; 11. February 5, 2009: 3RR; 12. May 20, 2009: 3RR.

He routinely does this (view his block log), and it is an ongoing pattern. Any non-admin warring this often would, at the very least, be any of the following:

1. Indefinitely blocked
2. Forced to take a 0RR or 1RR restriction from the community or Arbitration Committee
3. Be facing some edit restrictions.

In the wake of this latest block, as is often this user's general tone, he is unrelenting in his positions and views, which is at the least unhelpful and likely not acceptable administrative behavior by modern 2009 Misplaced Pages standards. This one block sequence in particular is troubling, and basically on the surface seems to encapsulate how he views certain things:

1. 09:31, March 30, 2007 A Man In Black (talk | contribs | block) unblocked "A Man In Black (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Leaving)
2. 09:04, March 30, 2007 Dominic (talk | contribs | block) blocked A Man In Black (talk | contribs) (anon. only) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (3RR at Template:Grand Theft Auto games, prior history of blocks for edit warring (see user talk page)) (unblock | change block)

This user in this instance was edit warring with User:Ikip, his principle opponent on the whole inclusion/deletion war, who he had previously blocked on April 26, twenty three days ago, as detailed here for alleged canvassing about the Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron, which AMiB also put up for MFD at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination). AMiB also created User:A Man In Black/Let's tape Ikip up in a box and mail him to the moon, and Template:AfD/Tagged, made again by Ikip, which AMiB deleted not once but twice in two days claiming WP:POINT. Others can supply other more recent evidence of his edit warring at recent RFCs. In short, this is an ongoing pattern that shows no signs of stopping now over the course of years. I ask the Committee to:

1. Review AMiB's status and standing as an administrator in light of this ongoing history, and committment to edit warring and disruption.
2. Review AMiB's actions of using admin tools in a dispute (the block of Ikip).
3. Should AMiB retain his tools, face a permanent restriction of their use in regards to Ikip.
4. Should AMiB retain his tools, face a permanent restriction of their use in regards to anything related to our xFD processes, "broadly construed", if evidence is presented of misuse related to this (which seems often hinted at, but I can't find at a quick glance).
5. Strongly consider a 0RR or 1RR permanent restriction on him on all parts of Misplaced Pages, enforceable by block by uninvolved administrators.

Thanks. rootology (C)(T) 05:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick answers

1. John: That is common for placement of Article FAQs, location-wise, that I've seen. rootology (C)(T) 16:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Bainer: I won't have time to look myself for a day or two, but I suspect others are reviewing this indepth right now. A quick look however turns up Template:AfD/Tagged, made again by Ikip, which AMiB deleted not once but twice in two days claiming WP:POINT. That's 3x now that he--deeply involved in the metawars of AFD with Ikip--used his tools in regards to Ikip. rootology (C)(T) 16:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
3. MZMcBride, Stifle, Ncmvocalist: As Casliber said, any RFC over any of these people is going to fall apart into partisan sqawking like the various "Characters" things with people like TTN & Pixelface before, on the 1st generation of these wars. These people are wholly entrenched, and the issue is AMiB's ongoing patterns of behavior which are frankly unbecoming of an administrator--he's argumentative, intractable, prone by clear evidence to edit war, used his tools repeatedly vs. a user he is involved with (Ikip) and then when finally blocked for 3RR again for 9 days for the latest incident, promptly blamed Ikip for the whole thing on his talk page. If a Checkuser/Oversight member was removed of his status for edit warring over years without a block in place, as seen here, then surely someone is unfit to be an administrator having picked up 12 blocks for edit warring since becoming an admin. Administrator is not some special rank and priviledge that gives us any more leeway on bad behavior--if some non-admin here since 2005 as I have been edit warred and was blocked 3 days, and I did the same thing in similar to matching circumstances, I damned well better pick up a 3 day block myself--or any other admin who did so, up to and including Jimmy--or our entire system of governance is a farce. rootology (C)(T) 16:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Roger: AMiB does do some infrequent valid admin work, but his block record is unbecoming of an admin, especially as all of that is post-RFA. A hard 0RR or 1RR per week with standard incrementing block enforcement to force discussion over warring, or a broadly construed topic-ban with block enforcement on some combination of: a) *fD related areas; b) Article Rescue Squadron specifically; c) User:Ikip; d) fiction topics would probably eliminate any disruption (but would need a full case with evidence to review). It seems looking quickly that those are the main areas that get AMiB in hot water. If possible, I'd say just the hard block-enforced 0RR or 1RR per week would be fine at the least, but I defer to the AC's collective wisdom. rootology (C)(T) 17:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by A Man In Black

The first I've heard of Rootology's (rather scattered) objections to me or my conduct is this RFAr. His second post on my talk page ever was notifying me of this RFAr. If he's worried about my editing habits or my administrative actions, there are more-appropriate venues and less adversarial ways to engage me other than going first to RFAr and demanding I be deadminned. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MZMcBride

What forms of dispute resolution have been tried previously? The phrase "jump the gun" seems apt here. Here's my idea: we train the AbuseFilter to disallow new Arbitration filings where the "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" section is a paragraph trying to obfuscate that the answer is "no." --MZMcBride (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by hbdragon88

There has only been one form of formal dispute resolution, so far I can see: an old Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/A Man In Black that was not properly certified (thus deleted) or written in a coherent way by a user who eventually was brought before arbitration. Another (very very old) dispute resolution was a 2007 request for mediation that ended up kind of going nowhere, since the edit war died down and the parties started to talk to each other more and weren't blindly reverting each other.

I honestly don't see what the pressing need is to bring AMIB to arbitration right now; there's no emergency, there's no administrator war going on, and Jimbo Wales didn't refer the case. There may have been 12 blocks since AMIB was granted adminship, but only two blocks this year and only one in 2008. Putting AMIB on the spot for the majority of 3RR violations he incurred two years ago strikes me as being punitive. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by somewhat non-impartial Casliber

I will recuse on this one as I am non-impartial and on the opposite side of the notability and AfD battles. There are many editors involved in this debate who do not descend into edit warring. Furthermore, there was an incident where A Man In Black blocked Ikip for 48 hours on April 26th for alleged canvassing, where there was a rather significant questionmark over involved status:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/block&user=A+Man+In+Black

I think that a well-circumscribed review of his conduct as an admin is warranted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick note on why RfC won't work

(1) RfC is not necessarily for review of admin conduct as arbcom review is, and (2) an RfC would lead two lines being drawn in a similar fashion to debates repeated a large number of times at AfD, MfD, DRV etc. We'd have a large page with many proposals and comments and no outcome....and alot of wasted editing, and then it would come here sooner or later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by passaby somewhat involved in earlier edit wars with AMIB Mythsearcher

AMIB some times get so involved he would simply do WP:POINT acts like this one: He is asking for a source for the source in this particular edit, even going as far fetched as asking something like who said the Gundam said in the source is this particular Gundam (While there is only ONE Gundam with the name Gundam with no prefix and suffix.) Just look at this history page and the page before. He is purely lucky that none of these involved parties reported him in such situation. He started to add in redundent fact tags into the article right after the three reverts he made after his edit was reverted by 2 different editors and at the third editor comes in to revert his edit, he started to mess around with the article. I am not saying that he should be punished for this unreported issue, in fact I have revert over 3 times in this edit war if his actions are not considered vandalism. Yet he is surely not one that is doing well as an admin, at least most of the time he was seen abusing his admin power and acting very emotional in edit wars with other parties. MythSearcher 13:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Stifle

I don't see anything here that an RFC isn't the appropriate venue for. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Vandenberg

I believe that is a quirk of the FAQ template they are using. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Abd

I agree with Stifle, with one reservation. AMIB is blocked, and unblock has been denied, though there is some evidence that the block is punitive and not needed to protect the project from immediate disruption. Instead of blocking, a cease-and-desist order could have been issued, with specific conditions, pending resolution. (If pushing a block button is appropriate, cease-and-desist-or-else would be just as allowable, and any admin should, absent emergency, honor such an order, the same as a block.) Because we have a blocked admin, immediate ArbComm action may be called for. I'd recommend confining ArbComm process here to a consideration of only the most immediate issue, not an overall review of AMIB's history, which may prove, if ArbComm otherwise bounces this case, to be unnecessary. --Abd (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the situation with User:MalikCarr. Almost two years ago, AMIB was in a dispute with this editor, see , , , and then blocked this editor, twice, in two successive days. No unblock template was put up because none was suggested. Now, this is clearly old, but ... has the problem ever been acknowledged? And then AMIB again blocked the same editor in November, 2008, not so long ago, see block log, see "discussion" at . No warning, apparently, no regular block notice. This block took place while AMIB's block of Jtrainor was under discussion at AN/I; in that matter, it appears that AMIB was likewise involved in a dispute. While copyvio justifies ignoring recusal policy, it should have been AMIB, then, to take the block to AN/I for review, not another editor. MalikCarr had commented in the AN/I discussion. AMIB did mention it on AN/I but only as the very last post in the prior thread about the Jtrainor block, and such a post could easily be overlooked, it attracted no comment at all even though the Jtrainer thread had heavy participation. However, in the more recent matter of blocking Ikip, AMIB had an emergency justification (canvassing is an emergency as long as !votes count, and we can assume that Ikip's behavior appeared to be canvassing to AMIB, even though the community concluded that it wasn't), and did take the matter to AN/I himself for review. The old matter with MalikCarr could be resolved in a flash if AMIB simply states, "I wouldn't do that again." (Or, because of alleged copyvio, "I'd report it immediately to AN/I in a prominent way.") And so we'd be left with the immediate matter, that AMIB is blocked for a marginal edit war without adequate warning that a block was imminent. Yes, an admin's behavior should be exemplary, but this is a better topic for an RfC or even lesser dispute resolution initially. I see AMIB as being responsive, based on the Ikip block affair. --Abd (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

comments by Ikip

The nominator wanted some examples of AMIB's misuse of tools before:

• AMIB blocked me for alledged canvassing, he acknowledged that I had broken no rules, and he then repeatedly lied that he was an uninvolved admin in the ANI. "Uninvolved" AMIB had also created an attack page against me before this ANI:

User:A Man In Black/Let's tape Ikip up in a box and mail him to the moon

• AMIB deleted a template unilaterally which he was arguing against.
• AMIB also blocked two editors who he was in an edit war with which stretched over a year and a half. (AMIB left in Nov 2007 and returned in Oct 2008)
  AMIB had protected the page twice he was edit warring on, once reverting himself because it was the "wrong version" and he reverted other users on this page an astounding 52 times. See: User:Ikip/amib

Ikip (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Note by Ncmvocalist

Bad idea to accept; time to stop avoiding RfC/U - if there is a repeated problem, a history or something along those lines, then he should be given an opportunity to respond to the wider community's feedback, that is, including a larger number of users that are not deletion debate regulars (for the lack of a better term). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by MalikCarr

Since editing Misplaced Pages, a soul-crushingly large portion of my edits have been content disputes with A Man In Black, as are all but one of my blocks (I suggest the reviewing parties have a look at those for further clarification). While happily ignoring the 3RR because his position is right and the parties reverting him are wrong, he blocks other editors in content disputes - my first block on Misplaced Pages was over an image, no less. He claimed it was copyvio, I posited that it has all the proper fair use attributions, he said you can't have more than one fair use image in an article (a rather draconian interpretation of Misplaced Pages's "use as little as possible" rules, especially when I was only trying to keep two images in the article to begin with), and I get blocked for copyright violation. A Man In Black has a systemic "I know better than you" platform and doesn't hesitate to use his administrator's tools to that effect when he gets the inkling that someone disagrees, while simultaneously ignoring other policies that get in the way of his own positions. 12 3RRs is a conservative figure if my experiences with him are indicative, as I've reported him for 3RR at least six times on different articles only to have them protected instead of blocking the offending party (sometimes on his edit no less - how is that productive?). In a nutshell, he blocks you for his interpretation of policy, and disregards the very same when they're not to his benefit. I'd be happy to provide diffs and such on request; it'd be a lot of pages to pile through or else I'd stick them up here and now. MalikCarr (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Stephen Bain

Is this too much? Blocked in content dispute MalikCarr (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Sandstein

I believe that I am uninvolved in any drama surrounding A Man In Black and I do not recall having had any substantial interactions with him. The continued administrator status of any editor with this sort of block log is patently unacceptable. I recommend that the Committee desysop A Man In Black by motion. Additional dispute resolution attempts are unlikely to be useful here: If a user (let alone an administrator) does not get the message that edit warring is prohibited after the n-th block, a RfC won't make him stop either.  Sandstein  19:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Jtrainor

I don't have much to add to what User:MalikCarr has said; we were involved in basically the same dispute over a few fiction articles. Every single one of my blocks came about as a result of that situation. Anyone who wants to see how AMIB does things as to look no further than his contrib history; he has an ongoing habit of deciding how something should be, and then edit warring to keep it that way, regardless of consensus or policy. It is worth noting that for an extended period of time while an administrator, he had a deletionism-advocating sig, as well, something which is at best disruptive when one works in fiction areas. Jtrainor (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

• Recuse - per my involvement. Tiptoety 05:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse - Per private evidence I emailed arbcom. MBisanz 01:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/3/3)

• Accept  Roger Davies 07:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Questions: (Q1) For a cursory glance at the logs, this editor does not appear to use the tools much. What does he need them for? I'd appreciate responses (with some numbers) from both sides of the debate. (Q2) As a further thought, do the parties think this could be resolved with a 1RR restriction? I'm particularly interested in hearing from A Man in Black on this.  Roger Davies 07:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Question: Could someone explain why Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron/FAQ is in namespace "Misplaced Pages talk" (5) instead of "Misplaced Pages" (4)? John Vandenberg 07:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• recused - non-impartial. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. Blocks should give an user ample notice that their conduct is problematic, especially if the user is a long time contributor and an administrator. This situation needs to be addressed in a way that gives a clearly decisive finding and remedy. The best outcome will be from an ArbCom case. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept per FloNight. Wizardman 14:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Question: without turning this into an evidence page, are there any instances of tool usage that are of concern apart from the Ikip block? --bainer (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Awaiting answers to the questions posed by my colleagues. I would also welcome a more detailed statement from A Man In Black. In that regard, unless there is a serious objection, I am prepared to unblock him for the limited purpose of allowing him to edit this page (and the case pages, if the request is accepted). Disclosure: I have an entry in A Man In Black's block log; it is two years old, and I will not be recusing based upon it, but thought I should mention it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse - I had commented on the most recent block of A Man in Black prior to this request being initiated. Risker (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill  03:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse - extended involvement in the ANI thread concerning AMIB and Jtrainor. Carcharoth (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. While I don't necessarily accept the theory that a long history of blocks of an admin makes a prima facie argument for accepting a case, the evidence submitted by Ikip certainly does. Per Flonight the prolonged history here is troubling. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect

Initiated by Brendan19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Brendan19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Phoenix of9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mike Doughney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mattnad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Anarchangel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Soxwon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Firestorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jim62sch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Teledildonix314 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Writegeist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GreekParadise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ikip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Buster7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ironholds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• i am sure there are many more, but i just cant list everyone

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• , . ,
• and most in depth and most recent, this RfC on him...
• this sums up my experience and my attempts to get help...

Statement by brendan19

1st, my apologies if the format/style/etc is incorrect here in any way. never done one of these before. many editors have had many similar problems with User:collect- namely edit warring , improper use of policies to suit his needs at the time, gaming the system, ididnthearthat, making proveably false claims about other editors -where he accuses me of being a sock, pov editing to give a right wing view (-shows he wants an older less appropriate source because it says what he wants it to say.), and just generally causing problems (getting articles and himself blocked from editing for a while and getting into arguments/disagreements with many editors). all of this is easily seen in the RfC . what you will note is that the RfC was completely unsuccessful because collect refused to take suggestions, examine his own behavior, take responsibility for said behavior/explain it, and instead collect systematically tried to discredit and attack every one of the editors he perceived as being against him. he then posted this which seemed to suggest he was Alice being tried before a crazy group of people from wonderland. he also said he would be going on a wikibreak (so he wouldnt participate in the RfC any longer) and proceeded to continue editing every day since then (save 2) with over 500 edits since then. i feel like we tried to get him to change his behavior and got nowhere with him. he is an experienced editor and in the past has only responded to things like getting blocked (see his block log). please take a look at the RfC and see what i am saying or feel free to listen to some of the other editors. thanks Brendan19 (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Statement by Vassyana

appears to be a 2nd revert. is possibly more than 1rr, its hard to tell because he keeps making edits like this again and again which are consistently changing the same info, but im not sure it counts as a revert. this is a second revert on the same day on jtp . here is another 2nd revert w/in 24 hours on another republican which came after this 1st revert . and i am going by the definition, "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances." these two are w/in a 26 hour period, but i believe that shows gaming the system and not truly trying to abide by his promise not to edit war- . after trying to remove the section- he then 2nd reverts here by only removing parts of the section- and this was after this revert- . the following definitely show that he violated his promise... and , along with and . thats as far as i looked, i dont know if there are more. i would also like to say that i have seen collect apologize twice before this, on the 11th of december and the 3rd of march ( and ). like now, he was then apologizing because he was in trouble and seeking to get out of it. a look at the most recent RfC will show that there were no apologies until we reached the point where we are now (again he apologizes when in trouble). this makes me believe these apologies and promises to change are only brought about by actual binding restrictions on his editing. thats sad, but i think it shows that if we further ignore his behavior we will find ourselves in this situation again. if i hadnt started this request for arbitration the last words we would have heard from collect on the most recent RfC would be these accusations, conspiracy theories and other mudslinging- quite a difference from what weve seen here. basically, my point is that there is a pattern of problems with collect that seem to keep slipping through the cracks because each one on its own may not be such a big deal to various admins. taken as a whole, i hope the pattern is visible here and i hope we can correct it. Brendan19 (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Statement by newyorkbrad

as i have shown above, collect has in the past demonstrated that he may not always follow through with his promises. he violated his 1rr on more than one occasion. you suggest holding off on a request for arbitration to see if he will follow through this time. my problem with that is what happens when he breaks his promise days, weeks, or months down the road. to reach this stage of dispute resolution takes a long time and a lot of work on all our parts. i have been editing on wikipedia for years now and i have never pushed for something like this on a single other editor until now. i have seen too many slaps on the wrist (warnings, edit blocks, and many articles shut down for edit wars) followed with broken promises by collect. i believe if we followed your suggestion that collect would be on his best behavior until this process is finished and perhaps for some time after that. then i believe the zebra's stripes would reappear. the only way i can imagine for your suggestion to work is if we set some date in the distant future to reevaluate collect's editing- im talking about a year or so. if he can remain civil and keep from edit-warring and doing the other behaviors mentioned in the RfC for more than a year then i believe the problem will have been solved. if within that year he goes back to his old behavior then i suggest we make some way to come back here and do something about it. i know that sounds complicated and thats why i think we ought to just go through with the arbitration now. --Brendan19 (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Soxwon

I was involved with an edit-war with Collect on Drudge Report. Afterwards we worked out our differences and resolved the situation. I found working with Collect that although he can be a bit frustrating, overall he is trying to improve the encyclopedia. I also feel that the RfC was flawed as it was conducted in an inappropriate manner (Collect's history was searched for possible violations, which were then used as "evidence"): , , erroneous charge made based on "evidence". They also used the Drudge Report as evidence without talking to any of the parties involved (Fascism only one person, Introman). It was only after I brought it up and started contacting other users that Ratel and The Four Deuces were brought in (I myself found out through Collect's talkpage and had I not seen it, they may have never even talked to anyone involved w/Drudge). This behavior might explain Collect's Alice response. Soxwon (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cube lurker

Collect has edited a number of articles on political subjects. He has strong opinions and at times he has butted heads with other users that also have strong opinions. Certainly edit warring is not the way to solve problems, but IMHO there's nothing here that's so unusual that it needs arbitration. If future conflicts appear uninvolved admins have the tools to deal with one or both sides of the conflict. No need to replay that sub-optimal RFC/U on the workshop pages here.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to NYB

I didn't believe an arbitration case was needed in the first place, but that belief is only strengthened by Collects statement. I believe all that a case would accomplish is sound and fury about past content disputes that are best left in the past. (See RFC). What would be the goal of arbitration that hasn't already been accomplished by Collect promising to use non-warring ways to deal with future content disputes?--Cube lurker (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Statement by GreekParadise

If the arbitrators are wondering why the RFC was less then productive I believe you'll find the full version if GreekParadise's statement informative. This sort of invective was commonplace as opposed to the RFC being a rational discussion of how to solve the situation.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ironholds

I don't consider myself an involved party, and I would advise the clerks/an uninvolved editor to trim the list of involved parties. I've not been involved in any of the articles Collect has been accused of edit-warring in, my only involvement was to comment on the RfC, which I don't think really makes me a party to the dispute itself. Ironholds (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ferrylodge

My experience has been that Collect is a skilled and reasonable editor. I haven't seen any behavior on his part that would rise to the level of an ArbCom matter.

The present Arbitration Request seems premature, and the present Arbitration Request does not cite any edits by Collect that followed the RfC.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dicklyon

As a party to the edit war with Collect at William Timmons I have to share some of the blame, but my impression is that Collect is one of the few very worst editors that I've had to deal with on wikipedia, in terms of persistent POV pushing contrary to all sources, reason, and other editors' advice and opinions. Fortunately, he went away from that one. Anything that can be done to moderate his behaviors would be worthwhile. Dicklyon (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Phoenix_of9

I had never interacted with most of the people in RFC but I saw that what many people experienced with Collect were same or similar to what I experienced. Edit warring, gaming the system, disruptive editing and Ididnthearthat. The way Collect responded to RfC was also typical. Instead of acknowledging anything, he engaged in wikilawyering and tried to have the RfC invalidated with lots of misinformation.

I also do think Collect may be using the attrition technique. Discussing something at great lengths and eventually trying to wear down the opponents patience. This is something that is very hard to back up with diffs so I'm sorry if that wasnt Collect's intention but that was my impression and thats what happened to User:Mike Doughney who has retired. Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Vassyana

Answering Vassyana's question:

After getting blocked, Collect promised on March 3 to not edit Drudge Report for a week or more as well as 1RR or less for at least a month. But he was back to editing it just three days later: . So as far as I know, he didnt break 1rr but he did break the other voluntary condition. Phoenix of9 (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466

My observations concerning the edit-warring at William Timmons: Collect was sorely tried by Dicklyon, who seemed to be editing with an agenda, persistently re-adding negative material with only a very tenuous link to the BLP subject. Collect seemed to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Jayen466 10:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

Yes. I edit warred. I now try to reach compromises whereever possible (vide ongoing mediation re: Rick Warren), using noticeboards, and earnestly seeking not to editwar. I was wrong. Collect (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(way too much info removed)

At this point, I am taking guidance, and will continue to take guidance, substantially from Gwen Gale, whom I trust is an acceptable administrator for me to approach with questions. I earnestly seek to avoid anything approaching an edit war, and shall continue to do so. Collect (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have also sent apologies to each person posting here with concerns about my past edit warring, in the hope that they will accept it as heartfelt. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In the matter of news, I am in the middle of a record flood (ovr 20" locally of rain) and may well lose power for up to a week shortly (they can not restore it on my street until all flood waters recede), Thanks! Collect (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by the Four Deuces

I support this arbitration. In the mediation, I gave examples of where Collect had been argumentative or deceptive, and he provided no response to my comments. Furthermore, I found it disturbing that his response to the mediation was to go on a "wiki-break", and post mocking comments on his talk page. Since the mediation died down he has resumed bad faith behavior and even reported one of the parties to the mediation for edit-warring, even though he was not involved in editing the page himself. I notice that some editors support Collect but they should ask themselves why Collect left them to argue his case for him in the mediation.

Response to arbitrators

In my view, nothing has changed since the mediation. I am currently in dispute with Collect on the Fascism article (since May 16). I see a continuing pattern. I complained that a lead sentence was ambiguous and not supported by the references. He ignores what I have stated, claims we have reached a compromise and then comes up with masses of references he obviously has not read, and does not back up the sentence. He did set up an RfC but threatened an editor who joined it with edit-warring (User_talk:Lapsed_Pacifist#Editwar warning).

Here is the discussion:

Talk:Fascism#Political spectrum

Talk:Fascism#How many cites do you want?

Talk:Fascism#Political Spectrum New Lead Sentence

Talk:Fascism#First sentence of "Fascism in the political spectrum"

Statement by GreekParadise

I support this arbitration. The RFC gives all the detail anyone would ever need to read on Collect's general manner of editing. I've seen everything Brendan mentions. Collect is one of the main reasons I rarely edit on wikipedia anymore. In fact, Collect has convinced me that it is a waste of my time to try to edit an article in wikipedia against a persistent editwarrer who is determined to skew an article. It is simply easier to allow a wikipedia article to be completely skewed, false, and inaccurate than to attempt to post a verified fact when Collect doesn't want that fact in an article. Because in my experienced the determined falsifier and wikilawyer (Collect) seems to always prevail over consensus and truth. If Collect doesn't get his way in the daylight, he sneaks his edits weeks or months later without mention on the talk page and then fights with you for thousands of hours when you try to restore the prior consensus. He always wins. Even when he's provably certifiably wrong. And if Collect remains unpunished and unreformed, I and many other editors will just give up on wikipedia. (I kind of already have.)GreekParadise (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SB_Johnny

I'm not named as a party, but I have been in touch with Collect via email in the hopes of encouraging/supporting him in efforts to "stay out of trouble". My hopes for a mellow outcome clearly did not come to pass :-). I think an investigation and decision from ArbCom would provide both legitimization and closure for a good number of involved parties (including Collect), so I urge the committee to take up the case. --SB_Johnny | 02:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Buster7

I support this arbitration. The recent RfC displayed Collect's persistent, widespread and ongoing history of editing problems with other editors. Now...had Collect acted in Good Faith in response to an outpouring of examples of his miss-steps, the RfC may have accomplished something. That was its intent...to move beyond all the fussing and fighting. Progress and moving beyond contention could have been the positive result. But, sadly, Collect missed the opportunity. Even now, his timid and meek statement barely scratches the surface. The community has been unable to resolve the disruptive and time-consumming actions of this editor. Arbitration is the next step available. --Buster7 (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Firestorm

My original involvement in this issue was as the MedCab mediator for the Rick Warren article. I eventually passed that one up to Medcom, where after a rough start significant progress is being made. I object to the inclusion of that RfM as a failed attempt at dispute resolution, as does Sunray, the current mediator. As for the RfC/U, I feel that it was a pointless dramafest. If I had my contributions examined for any possible hint of wrongdoing and had all of it shoved down my throat with a great heap of incivility, I would be pretty upset, too.

Regarding Collect's behaviour, I acknowledge that he is *very* rough around the edges, and often pushes himself too aggressively. Throughout our mediation I have consistently disagreed with his opinions. He also has (had?) several misunderstandings about the proper applications of policies and guidelines, specifically BLP, UNDUE and COAT. However, I feel that he has the wiki's best interests at heart, and is in need of guidance more than arbitration. I urge the Arbitrators to reject this case, so we can all go home and move on to more productive aspects of the wiki than this senseless drama mongering. Firestorm 17:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Writegeist

Support. In my experience Collect is a disruptive POV-pushing editor who habitually sucks other editors into edit-wars. He has blended tactics (bullying, deception, vindictiveness; falsification and misrepresentation of WP policies and also of other editors’ posts and positions; assumptions of bad faith; wikilawyering, gaming the system, railroading, Ididn’thearthat; false and therefore unsupported accusations of meat- and sockpuppetry; refusal to apologise or compromise; disregard for consensus; filibustering; wheedling attempts to influence admins etc.) and tone (sneering, disdainful – vide his response to his RfC/U; uncollegial; arrogant, superior, peevish, unreasonable – i.e. an all-round fuck-you attitude, apparently rooted in an unshakable faith in his own impunity, towards anyone who resists his POV-pushing etc.) to concoct the most consistently nasty editing experience I have had on WP. Posts here and at his RfC/U from other editors who have opposed his autocratic POV-pushing show that I am far from alone in this view. I believe one editor (perhaps someone will correct me if I’m wrong) has already been run off WP by Collect’s behaviour. I now avoid articles Collect is involved in. I believe others do too. This is not good for the project.

In light of Collect’s dismissive response to his RfC – pretending to be on “Wikibreak” while actually continuing to contribute to pages other than the RfC – today’s sudden rash of formulaic apologies20, posted to his exasperated critics' talk pages, for “any editwars” he “may” have had with them, and his promise to “endeavour to continue avoiding them”, looks hollow. And I think it's important to note that this “apology” refers not to his actions but to hypothetical events (“editwars I may have had with you”), as if he innocently found himself entangled in events of someone else’s making. Just like his pseudo-apology to me for his repeated, totally groundless and unsupported personal attacks (“I have earnestly sought to make no personal attacks on you, and apologize if you feel that the statements are personal attacks” – my emphasis), which continued during his RfC/U, his current mass-circulation “apology” studiously avoids apologizing for his actions. These weaselly-worded “apologies” – yet more examples of Collect’s use of deviousness and deception to the system – are expedients which demonstrate that, even in the face of all the evidence here and at the RfC, Collect still does not concede that he is at fault. Characteristically regarding us all as fools, he seems to think we’re easily duped. I trust the outcome here will prove to him that that’s a foolish assumption. Writegeist (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment in support of statement

I Support Editor:Writegeist's statement. Attempts to make light of Collects actions and to fail to proceed with this RfA would give Collect a stamp of approval. He will most assuredly use the failure to convene as not just proof of his innocence but proof of all of his ludicrous claims of ganging up and cabal creating and sockpuppetry. He will never acknowledge any wrongdoing unless confronted by impartial Administrators. Gwen Gale is not impartial.--Buster7 (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Teledildonix314

This arbitration needs to remedy Collect's consistent patterns of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, POV-pushing particularly via strawman arguments, appearance of egotistical presumption of infallibility, and baseless attacks on his critics rather than any heed of their concerted criticisms. However, all my interaction with Collect has amounted in a single prolonged Mediation Case; and that's privileged. I hope Arbitration will produce an amenable solution; but i must effectively excuse myself from this situation because i'm not supposed to bring up diffs from privileged Mediation. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~₄₁₁~ 07:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/3/0/1)

• Accept. The RfC's been open a month without edits for two weeks, so if there's still an issue then Arbcom does need to look into the conduct of all involved parties. Wizardman 01:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill  02:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Per his statement above, Collect has indicated that he recognizes there is a problem and states that he has changed his method of editing. Granted that this is very much a last-minute acknowledgement on the eve of arbitration, I wonder if we should defer this request for a bit to see whether Collect's editing does in fact substantially improve, before opening an arbitration case. I'd welcome input on this suggestion from the parties and others commenting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. Looking through the comments, it's my view that ArbCom involvement is needed to sort out the situation since there is not a clear consensus about the nature of the problem. ArBCom case will let all involved offer evidence of their view of the problem. From there we can decide on the needed remedies. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept.  Roger Davies 04:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept - scenario suggests independent investigation rather than (or hopefully as well as) mediation will be next step. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. I am not convinced that this is beyond the ability of the community to resolve, that all avenues of resolving conduct concerns have been exhausted, nor that any disruption taking place is such a pressing concern that the former two points need to be waived. Additionally, arbitration is a very blunt instrument and I believe this situation would be better served by a more personalized and nuanced approach. Also, Newyorkbrad's point is also persuasive to me. On a related note, can anyone provide information about whether or not Collect abided by his voluntary one-month submission to a 1RR restriction through the month of March? I am open to the possibility that arbitration may be necessary and appropriate, but I do not see at the moment. --Vassyana (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Request: Collect, could you expand your statement a bit. It would be nice to know what steps you will take to avoid this happening again if this requested case is declined. John Vandenberg 07:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline at this time, per bainer. John Vandenberg 23:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Reject, unless some preliminary evidence can be demonstrated of continuing problematic editing following the request for comment (preliminary in the sense that all that is necessary is to demonstrate that there is a real issue to be considered). In the event that the request is accepted, the scope ought to extend to include all the parties listed here or at the request for comment who have been involved in these editing disputes. --bainer (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Initiated by Durova Durova 16:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Durova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Scuro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Literaturegeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nja247 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Hordaland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• J Readings (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 all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikiquette alert
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/jmh649
• Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-09 Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
• Informal attempt at content RfC
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive481#The_ADHD_article_and_Scuro
• Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-05-01_Electroconvulsive_therapy
• Topic ban proposal at ANI

Statement by Durova

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

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

One of the major concerns three years ago when the disruptive editing guideline was drafted was crafting the page in a way that addressed disruptive individuals while preventing groups of like-minded editors from railroading minority viewpoints out of the discussion. Either scenario is superficially plausible here, and it would take more resources than the admin boards have to determine what is really happening. None of the parties are migrating the discussion to a more suitable venue, so initiating this request on the strength of prior dispute resolution attempts.

Scuro's statement quotes me from a portion of the noticeboard discussion where I was asking for evidence of prior dispute resolution. Prior dispute resolution did occur, as listed and linked above. It was necessary for me to dig it up. Durova 23:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Scuro has posted to my user talk to request a renaming of this proposed case. It would really be up to the arbs and clerks to implement the suggestion. Durova 19:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

With regard to FloNight's acceptance comment, what would you have me do? At ANI I first waited silently for evidence, then requested it explicitly when the discussion dragged on without it. After discussion spun out further (mostly in lieu of evidence) I pulled up the prior DR attempts myself, listed resolution options, and recommended other community-based solutions in preference to arbitration. None of those suggestions were taken up. This RFAR initiation actually coincided with thread closure, where Xeno (acting totally independently) recommended RFAR as one of two viable options and then endorsed this request. How, then, am I to be construed as having interfered in a destructive manner? Respectfully request a refactor of that acceptance comment; it is unfounded and prejudicial. Durova 19:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jmh649

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

• Unsourced material:

• Removing sourced material:

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

• Tags:

• Added ref:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to Scuro

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

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 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 16:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Literaturegeek

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

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

I had edited the ADHD articles for a few days when scuro showed up. The first day of meeting me scuro thinking that I was a new comer or would get frightened by a warning template sent a 3 revert template to my talk page after doing a single revert!. I took this as an attempt to get me to back off of the article. Scuro has been accused of "ruling the articles" in the words of the consultant psychiatrist who tried to edit the article and of using circular arguments to wear down opponents and this stretches back years. Something must be done to put a stop to this nonsense. What is more infuriating is that scuro shouts ownership to other editors who simply request that scuro produces citations before making changes to the article. The problem with scuro trying to drive away productive or new editors who he doesn't like is not just a flash in the pan but stretches back months and years. See. , , , To demonstrate the degree of disruption scuro causes is quite difficult unless one is to read over hundreds or thousands of their posts to grasp the level of disruption. However, I would like to submit this long discussion Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)/Archive_3#a_montage_of_correspondence.2C_on_reviews_and_citable_sources as evidence and I would really appreciate it if the reviewing admins could read it to understand how draining it is of productive editors who have to engage in pointless, circular and often ridiculous arguments. Finally I would like to point out that whilst durova has pointed out that no evidence or little evidence was submited, that was in the early stages of the admin noticeboard discussion. As the discussion progressed diffs were retrieved by multiple editors to verify the allegations. Evidence has now been gathered and submited. Thank you for taking the time to look into this long standing problem. I would like to point out that editors of opposing views on ADHD are supportive of a block on scuro, thus this is not "politicially" or POV motivated. This is purely disruption motivated.

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

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

Reply to scuro

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

To the reviewing admins.

I am an experienced editor and I have been involved in a couple of heated arguments on articles but the need for this type of intervention was never necessary nor Rfc, or anything like that. Such discussions were productive as we were debating reliable sources. Always resolvable via consensus and discussions on talk pages. I spent months debating talk pages with a user from Roche Pharmaceuticals but even that was productive as we came to consensus, improved article. I stopped using weak sources or we brought neutrality. I was involved in intense prolonged discussions on fluoroquinolone adverse effects article but the outcome was productive with a balanced and informative article. I became involved in a dispute on the temazepam article albeit it wasn't my edits in dispute but similarly the result was productive, a balanced article with verifiable data. All talk page debates, discussions which I have had previously always were productive albeit sometimes heated but this really is totally different from your regular disputes you see on wikipedia as virtually nothing ever productive comes from the endless circular arguments as they are not about citations (scuro never produces citations for their arguments). I say this to make it clear that this is putting a stop to enormous prolonged and endless disruption to the wikipedia project which bears no benefit to anyone and also to stop him driving away good editors, hence why you have editors of opposing POVs on ADHD articles supporting the block on scuro. I requote this piece of evidence, an enormous discussion, as a neutral example of how scuro behaves on wikipedia, Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)/Archive_3#a_montage_of_correspondence.2C_on_reviews_and_citable_sources. It is a neutral example because the discussion is not specifically on ADHD or amphetamines. He filled up that talk page in a matter of days or weeks with ridiculous arguments and was impossible to reason with. I have only had to deal with scuro for a few weeks and it drove me to distraction.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Name of dispute

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

More evidence

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

Yet more evidence

Fighting for over a month over a few sentences including an edit war.User_talk:Scuro/Archive_1#3RR_Violation A quote from this section of scuro's page by user Scolaire. He said "But the two of you fighting, day after day for four months, arguing over the meaning of one word at a time, is a bigger eyesore." This seems true to form, will argue endlessly for months on end and wil never quit. Complaints of scuro deleting large chunks of referenced data from the psychiatry article.User_talk:Scuro/Archive_1#Psychiatry

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

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

Outcome I would like to see

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

To Durova

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

To Ncmvocalist

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

To J Readings

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

To scuro

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

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

Statement by Unionhawk

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

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

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

Reply to scuro

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

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

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

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

What the crap? Gaming the system to remove minority views from the talk page, while you say that Social Construct theory is a minority viewpoint. I'm so confused right now...

And plus, Nja247 did give you some room, by not taking administrative action against you. You say that people need to talk and listen, but that also applies to you as well. The biggest irony here, is that you want consensus, but won't allow it if it is anything other than your viewpoint. It's rather frustrating...--Unionhawk 16:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Hordaland

He, for the record :P--Unionhawk 22:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Abd

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

Regarding the Name of the Dispute

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

Response to JReadings

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

Response to Ncmvocalist

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

Statement by Nja247

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My comments on statements made here

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

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

2) Scuro

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

Statement by Scuro

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

Of the 4 steps listed on this arbitration proposal that confirm dispute resolution:

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

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

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

The editor with whom I've had the most conflict with, wrote this over 7 months ago:

• "Somehow I do not think we will ever agree".
• "They only way things can really continue is if he gets banded from editing these pages".

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

Reply to Ncmvocalist

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

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

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

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

Reply to Nja247

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

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

to everyone

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

Statement by Abd

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

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

Statement by Hordaland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to JReadings

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

Statement by JReadings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overall, I think the title of this arbitration request is a little off. It is not really “ADHD”, but rather “Scuro and the Question of Disruptive Editing.” Thank you for your time, J Readings (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by 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)

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)

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)

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)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

• This case will be opened by a clerk at, or after, 03:00 am tomorrow (UTC). AGK 17:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Individualist anarchism

Initiated by Eduen--Eduen (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Eduen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Nihilo 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vision Thing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zazaban (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk page discussion and calls to come to an agreement by request filing party.

Statement by Eduen

The article of dispute used to be disputed as having a USA centric view. I along with user Zazaban proceded to try to correct this and so started to enlarge the section that deals with european individualist anarchism. After this in order for the article to be coherent with the new information, it needed to be corrected in the introduction and the overview as well as the external links. Even though we came to acceptances of changes by some users, user Nihilo 01 who happens to have a previous history of edit wars and some blockings from editing, never wanted an agreement and only proceded to enter into an edit war. My proposal can be seen in the Talk page of the article as to how the article could be neutral. I decided to come here since also the user Vision Thing has decided to get into this edit war and only makes big reversions without participating in the talk page.--Eduen (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Seddon

I would like to echo what Sam Blacketer has said. This dispute is civil, and has not got to the stage in which Arbitration/Formal Mediation is required. I recommend that you seek a request for comment or informal mediation with The Mediation Cabal before seeking the aforementioned processes. Third opinion is typically for dual party disputes rather than multi party disputes. I would like to encourage all parties to continue in the civil manner with which this dispute has occurred. Rarely do things progress when tempers soar and insults fly. Seddσn 15:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by AGK

Although I would be of the same opinion as Sam and as Seddon, and concur that this dispute is not appropriate to arbitration at the present, a review of the recent history of this article nonetheless concerns me. The basis for my concerns are two-fold. (1) The throughput of edits on the article is alarmingly high, and the majority of the edits are abrupt changes of direction; generally, the article will run for six or seven edits with one version, before a party on the "other side" of the dispute edits the article and turns it head-over-heels. Changes to a Misplaced Pages article are immediately visible to our readers, and so a modicum of stability should be injected into this article quite quickly. (2) The dispute has been ongoing since 7 April 2009. To my mind, that is indicative of weaknesses in the approach the parties to this dispute are taking.

Whilst arbitration of this dispute is not an option, administrator intervention may well be. Having reviewed (admittedly, not in-depth) the dispute, this seems to be a content dispute with overlying editor conduct issues; respectively, those issues would probably be best dealt with through direction to the standard dispute resolution forums—such as third opinion, request for comment, or informal mediation (as suggested by Seddon and by Sam)—and by appropriate tackling of the user conduct issues—cautioning the parties and educating them on appropriate techniques for collaboratively editing, with suggestions of blocking if conduct further deteriorates.

Précis: this is prematurely coming to arbitration, but the dispute has been affecting this article for some time now. The neutralising of the parties' conduct problems (by an administrator), and directing this to appropriate dispute resolution forums, would be a reasonable strategy going forward.

AGK 16:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/12/0/0)

• Comment. In advance of hearing from other editors, I would say that this looks like it is primarily a content dispute involving no very serious behavioural problems. True, there is an entrenched dispute and it seems that two different versions of the article are growing up which are being reverted between each other. There does not seem to have been any other attempts at dispute resolution, other than an ongoing and civil (although somewhat tense) debate on the talk page. I would encourage involvement of other editors through a request for comment on the page; you might also seek a third opinion. If that fails to resolve anything or help you come to a compromise, then seeking mediation may help. Arbitration is the last method of dispute resolution and this dispute looks to be coming to us prematurely; I am minded to decline. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Reject. Premature for arbitration. Seek other methods of dispute resolution and assistance from uninvolved admins and experienced editors. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per both preceding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline, this is the kind of dispute that mediation was made for. Wizardman 01:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline, per above. Kirill  02:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline - suggest following Sam's advice. Carcharoth (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per above. John Vandenberg 02:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per above, esp per WizMan. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per suggestions above. Please bear in mind that we insist on strict compliance with all rules and governance procedures on the anarchism articles. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline  Roger Davies 04:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. --Vassyana (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per suggestions above. Risker (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)