Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Workshop

This arbcom may be under an attack soon

Hi, could I bring to the attention of the arbcom that i suspect that two members may be involved although skinwalker seems to be the initiator of the attack in an attempt to sabotage this arbcom. Their names are skinwalker and sceptical. This stems from a dispute with Sceptical Chemyst.User_talk:The_Sceptical_Chymist#Why_are_you_doing_this.3F. Skinwalker who has had no dealings that I know of with scuro read a bogus complaint by a sockpuppet of Mwalla (a banned user that I helped get banned) who stalks me. Anyway skinwalker read this sockpuppets report and then jumped to conclusions and passed his views criticising me on the admin noticeboard. Anyway I defended myself from his comments. I guess that he has seen that I am in a dispute with Sceptical Chymist and has now decided to use this as an opportunity to "get back at me".User_talk:The_Sceptical_Chymist#E-mail I have come to the conclusion that wikipedia is full of people with "nothing better to do" and shall we say "issues" and will be drastically reducing my editing on wikipedia as a result as resolving disputes is impossible and banning such people takes too long and too much time. I do think that admins reading this should review policies of dealing with people like this. Ironically this coming attack of this arbcom from skinwalker and sceptical chymist will NOT hurt me because I have finished editing the ADHD and stimulant articles but it may hurt other editors who are keen to continue in the working environment of the ADHD articles.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't even know or barely know skinwalker which shows what I mean about "issues" and nothing better to do.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

reply to Scuro's tag comments

Scuro posted the following: LG, I guess we are both right and both wrong. It's a two part message. one part states see discussion in talk and the other part states do not remove until the conflict is resolved. The second part of that message gets ignored a lot ;). LiteratureGeek, you pulled that tag down the first two times in under an hour, and twice within the day! That is resolving a dispute? I've stated clearly that I had pointed out what was wrong with the article. Again, see my response to Sifaka. This discussion is a perfect example of what I face on the talk page constantly, lots of barbs thrown my way and plenty of roadblocks towards progress. Either of you two want to discuss how tags could work? This is a workshop, that is the title of this thread.--scuro (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Scuro, if the tag was obviously needed, you should have been able to provide specific evidence that I and several other people asked you for. You say you made a point, "the article is a coatrack," but that is not clear or specific. You say "Contributors have wanted me to point out everything that I saw wrong with the article and provide citations for each point. That would have been a huge waste of time given the circumstances. My approach was validated by the astronomical amount of typing generated with regard to the single "suffer" citation, and I said as much back then." People wasted a lot of time asking you to be specific and you wasted a lot of time not being specific. The reason there was an astronomical amount of typing was because you didn't let the citation discussion rest even though James found the alternate sources. The astronomical amount of typing doesn't validate your approach at all; the amount of argument over one citation is a sign of dysfunction. I'm not saying there aren't issues with the ADHD controversies article; however, because there was so much smoke being raised about one issue it has become extremely difficult to focus on the other issues and solicit opinion from the other editors. Also non-regular editors are going to be intimidated trying to follow conversation that frequently becomes personal and unfriendly on the talk page. If I hadn't started editing the ADHD pages before the conflict kicked up I would have stayed far away. That's why I chose to participate in this arb, because I'm sick of all the smoke and drama that is distracting people from trying to address issues and is scaring away potential editors which would provide valuable imput. Sifaka ^talk 00:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Get a grip here Sifaka. It was a 3R, for trying to keep a POV tag on the page. You think I was totally wrong, I think a heck of a lot was going on before this to frustrate me . You wanted me to state every possible reason for a POV tag, and I believed I had reasons for keeping the focus on just one bad citation. Later you got what you wanted when I explained exactly why the undue weight issues made the article biased. Did any of you respond to that? That is called a double standard.

But, lets stop and think here for a moment. We are at arbitration talking about a 3R that happened 2 months ago. Do you know how silly that sounds? If you folks want to hammer this nail right through the other side of the piece of wood, well go ahead. I'm totally amazed that none of you can let the issue go. If I were you I'd start asking myself what are we doing at arbitration blocking every effort at mediation or negotiation? I'm here to talk issues, but even you Sifaka, have avoided moving forward. You folks are talking about my "smoke", "drama", and "distractions"...yet you are all exhibit A in not dealing with any issues right now that would move us forward. Again we have a double standard. What if arbitration doesn't see this exactly the way you see it? Wouldn't you want to at least look like you are still trying and acting in good faith?--scuro (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you are misunderstanding my point of view on the tag, let me clarify. I never said the tag was wrong; nor did I say that the article didn't have undue weight issues and thus didn't need a tag. On the contrary I can point out sections which I believe should be edited for tone and flow, expanded upon, or presents information in such a way or leaves out an important aspect that creates an undue weight issue. (I'm not going to talk about content issues here. If you would like me to outline them on the article talk page, I will.) My position has been that the tag is unnecessary and was creating unnecessary and distracting debate over whether or not it should be there. In short, instead of encouraging article improvement, it was actually doing the opposite. I asserted that it would be better to ignore the tag altogether and outline the specific article issues. Once those issues were outlined then it would be clear whether or not the article needed a tag as would what needs to be done to improve the article.

Actually I would like to hear your reasons why you felt that it would be better to focus on the citation rather than bring up other issues. It wasn't clear to me why and knowing the reasons may help in our interactions later.

I disagree with you calling my behavior a double standard. After the citation, you supplied one more instance of undue weight: the intro. I began drafting a new version in the day and left you a talk page message asking how you felt about it. If you are concerned about my lack of immediate response, it was because I became busy in real life (which I noted in the same section below) and after reading the gist of the conversation, figured that the consensus was that the new intro was generally an improvement. It was my hope that you and other editors could continue to address additional undue weight problems in the intro.

Also, I don't care if the 3RR occurred 2 months ago. If it were over and done with then I wouldn't be here. The problem is that when this arb was filed about a month ago, the tag issue had still not died.

I have noticed you seem to have repeatedly asserted that this arbitration is not a step forward. Other editors, the administrators, and I are participating in this arb because we think it is a way to move forward. As I put in my evidence page, it is difficult to get you to cooperate with other editors' requests, which is not conducive to mediation or negotiation. That is probably why we are at arbitration now.

Finally, I do not understand what you mean by, "What if arbitration doesn't see this exactly the way you see it? Wouldn't you want to at least look like you are still trying and acting in good faith?" You will have to clarify this if you would like me to respond to it. Sifaka ^talk 17:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Maid service

Nja, why invite others to your house when it is in disarray?

This only makes sense if the article is yours, and that other editors are guests.

Personally, I think that WP:MCOTW is much more like a cleaning service than visitors. Most people want a housekeeper precisely because the house is dirty, but I suppose there are those that clean house before the maid arrives, that exercise before going to the gym, sunbathe before going to the tanning salon, lose weight before talking to the bariatric physician, invest their money before talking to the financial advisor, do their taxes before meeting with their accountant, and so forth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been under a form of edit restriction for 6 months through page ownership. Through extensive edits, the article has been shaped in a certain fashion and it's biased. If you look on the talk pages currently, my valid input is being ignored. The undue weight issue has been brought up many times and has been ignored over many months. I'd like to be part of that MCOTW process, and I wouldn't want to be marginalized as a lone disgruntled editor. WhatamIdoing, what is so wrong with finding true consensus, showing a united front, before you invite guests? Why would you want to show them conflict?--scuro (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Other editors are not guests. The article is not yours, not Jmh649's, not LG's, not anyone's. You can't "invite guests" to the article because the article any more than you can invite people to walk down a public street.

Additionally, "finding true consensus" simply cannot be done while you are actively discouraging other editors from joining a discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As I and others stated to you on multiple occasions, you are more than welcome to find reliable sources to back up your view and to edit the article. Wikipedia works via reliable sources, so original research and personal opinions on a citation, section or article cannot be used. I guess if wikipedia endorsed original research then you could claim ownership but as it doesn't this is not the case. When this arbcom finishes I recommend using reliable sources to contribute to the article to cite what you think that it should cite.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI quotations

Scuro, you've gone to a lot of trouble to post supportive opinions from a discussion at ANI, and before you invest more time doing something similar, please consider whether it's really worth your time and effort. Not only will the ArbCom members generally be familiar with that discussion in toto, but it's irrelevant: ArbCom is not bound by the opinions expressed at ANI. You could have 100% support or 100% opposition, and ArbCom could still decide the opposite. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I get it WhatamIdoing. But I have basically defended myself against many. Responding takes a lot more time then simply making declarations, especially when a significant number of those declarations are bogus. What I have recently demonstrated is that, the notion that there was a clear consensus to move to arbitration, was a totally false notion.(examine points within my entry in this section) This is important because it demonstrates that there was a degree of vilification involved in this case, where most parties overstated or gave dishonest testimony. This behaviour needs to be examined and commented upon. It goes very much against the principles of Wikipedia. [1]--scuro (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if it were entirely true (and it is my opinion that ArbCom's choice to accept a case makes all arguments about whether they should absolutely moot), it is still a waste of your time: the voting appears to be finished, and the tallies have such strong majorities that last-ditch efforts to change enough members' minds seem hopeless. The case may close within hours. So why sink more time into this page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)