Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/jmh649

This RFC really is a plea for help. JMH has said that he does not believe that wikipedia has "much for reprimanding people" [1], which may underlie his reluctance to engage in this discussion, while at the same time doing over 30 edits (without summaries) some of which may be controversial and deserve discussion.--Vannin (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not baseless

I wasn't sure where on the main page I should put this, so I'm sticking it here. I may move it later. --*Kat* (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Scuro may have a somewhat spotty behavior record _{Nevermind, that was over a year ago} but Vaoverland and I don't. And yet, we agree with Scuro that there is a problem. While I can't speak for Vaoverland, it wasn't the ownership issues that got me to sign off on this, it was the conduct issues. From what I've seen, Doc James doesn't give a darn about Wikipedian policies except for when they work in their favor.--*Kat* (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The charges against Doc James certainly are not baseless (And, I'll note, in responding to the question on the project page, he acknowledged that, though a bit weakly.) However, it's essential to understand the context. His actions did not take place in a vacuum. I'm not justifying them except in one way: he's new, and he was faced with a difficult situation. If he were to continue as he began, I support sanctions. But as a newcomer, we routinely forgive such, if the behavior shifts. I see that he is responding to community criticism and suggestions, which is very hopeful. He has also, himself, become more hopeful, which usually encourages cooperative behavior, see his recent comments on my Talk. --Abd (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd question the, "somewhat spotty behaviour record" notion. Granted I'm not the brightest candle on the Christmas tree, how else do you explain that it took so long for me to file this RFC? ;) But really, the worst accusation that has ever stuck to me is that I am a single account user. To which I counter with my quote from my user page.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scuro If you try to correct misinformation on mental health pages, you will be attacked on wikipedia.

I'll grant Doc James that this RFC is one sided in it's format and the way the evidence is presented. I'll also grant DJ that a number of his edits are good and make the article a better article. DJ has a lot to offer wikipedia. He is intelligent and has a basic scientific understanding that most don't have...but yes, this one is all about conduct. From my viewpoint a lot of that behaviour is simply inexcusable. These are blatant transgressions of wiki policy and can't be explained away by context, or lopsidedness. Instead of deflecting attention away from his behaviour, (Doc James can file a separate behaviour/ content mediation at anytime) in this RFC he needs to give answers. Hopefully as we go through this process, he will earnestly commitment to wikipedian consensus building and civility.--scuro (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Scuro has a comment about this "single account user" thing on his User page. He got it wrong, and this shows that he didn't pay attention to the original comment (which was almost certainly from me, and which almost certainly included a link). He is, indeed, a single account user, as far as we know, but that's not what I said. Rather, he is a single purpose account, devoted to a quite narrow range of articles, and, even more than that, to maintaining those articles from a particular point of view, and he's been doing it for a long time. That's not an "accusation," it is a simple description, anyone can see it by looking at Special:Contributions/Scuro, which is certainly why it "stuck." Being an SPA doesn't establish that one is misbehaving, but it does place editor behavior into a context. I'd recommend to anyone trying to understand what is going on here that they read what Scuro has written on his user page, permanent link. I have no reason to doubt any of it as being a sincere report of his experience and motivations. --Abd (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Attacks

I have been attacked by Scuro ever since I have arrived and am only giving back some of what he dishes out. I took him seriously when I started but stopped after a while. Some of the first accusation were of "manic editing" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder/Archive_7 then he says that he should revert the page to how it was a month ago. That was sort of how it started. And well it just sort of snow balled from there.

I would much rather work on content then have to continuely defend studies and comments published in well known medical journals. But he post questions such as how does one refute the NICE guidelines? And removes info from the FDA web site saying he need to check with friends first.

Vannin suggest that we go with the line "ADHD is generally a chronic disorder". Scuro continued to edit war this to "ADHD is a chronic disorder" a few more times.

Kat suggest we use the past tense for groups that find ADHD controverial. After Scuro had removed it a few times. He then started to repeatedly tag this line.

We have two big tags at the top. Having multiple tags in the text makes it more difficult to edit. Therefore another editor suggested we remove them and they were. They were however replaced.

(This is not quite correct. I suggested that we move two tags related to a specific reference [2] after JMH started saying a particular reference was unreliable. He has since made an effort to remove any other tags that have been added, despite consensus that some tags were necessary)--Vannin (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have stated all along that "I am happy to work together but that there is however a hierarchy of evidence which we must follow."

I have been accused of using other accounts. This is false and a show of bad faith.

I could continue to recite the whole thing issue by issue but one can read it in the talk pages. Doc James (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"I have been attacked by Scuro ever since I have arrived and am only giving back some of what he dishes out".

If Doc James posted under the name Jamesreinhardt, his first post was on May-26-08 The first Doc James post on talk is dated Sept 11 08. There are 7 posts by DJ until I reply to one of his posts five days later on Sept 16th. James posted 10 separate posts on talk before I post the "manic editing" "attack post". Here is what the post stated,"If you are chopping and adding several thousands of characters a day you are over doing it. Take a breather. Some of us have jobs and a family and can't devote our day to Wikipedia. Stop for tomorrow please. In when you do a large swath of editing stop for a day or two every time. It's not in the policy but it is courteous gesture to your fellow editors".[3]--scuro (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And Jim responds and ignores the issue of "community" and time constraints that other editors have. From here on it the editing increases in velocity and communication about his edits decreases. That was our introduction to James. [4]--scuro (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Manic Editing

I count over 50 edits yesterday by Jmh on ADHD related articles, without one edit summary in talk. Yesterday was not an unusual amount of edits for Jmh649. How else would you describe this sort of editing style that does not seek consensus? Doubly more so when he knows that four separate editors are unhappy with his editing style and he is in RFC which is specifically looking at such behaviour? I admit that I had falsely assumed separate accounts. This was me incorrectly assuming that two time stamps with different ID's, on an edit meant that they were done by the same editor. It was a mistake and I apologize for this.

As for the other "transgressions" you could file a med cab or your own RFC. Differentials would bolster your case as some editors may challenge your claims.--scuro (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

JMH has been asked on a number of occasions to use edit summaries. The manic style, though, goes beyond the number of edits, but is related. After 30 to 50 edits have been made in one day, we are left with too many open topics and we end up swirling round (it is hard to show this in diffs) and it is very hard to reach consensus. We also go around in circles. JMH took out the term chronic altogether as well as the term neuro, leaving only the word behavioural. There had to be endless debates to get the terms reinstated, and during the discussion was rude and arrogant. Then when the evidence was found again to support both terms there was no acknowledgement that his previous implications about editors lack of knowledge were incorrect. Then he later raises the issue again, as if it had never been discussed, thus we end up going around in odd circles.--Vannin (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about Scuro

This isn't about Scuro, Doc James its about you. And to repeat what I said before, he's not the only one who thinks there is a problem. Scuro's diff's had exactly 0 impact on my decision to sign off on this RfC. I didn't even read them. I didn't need to. I'd already read the entire dispute.--*Kat* (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U's can be about any person involved in the dispute. From WP:RFC#Request_comment_on_users:

• An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors...

RfCs are part of dispute resolution. They are not devices of punishment or shaming a user that you're mad at. Disputes are generally best resolved by dealing with the dispute as a whole. To only look at a single individual's involvement is to deliberately ignore the big picture. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what is supposed to happen, and, in practice, RfC comments can be on any involved editor, if relevant to the subject editor's behavior. However, I've also seen a closing admin set aside such and sanction only the subject editor, even though consensus appeared to be that the subject editor's behavior wasn't necessarily the worst. Now, that RfC wasn't appealed, my guess is that an appeal to ArbComm would either have set aside the sanction (a topic ban) or would have extended it to include other editors; such an appeal would have been highly disruptive, probably, and that may be why the subject editor did not appeal. (The complainants were both administrators and one is a very highly privileged one. Sanctions against them would have been "controversial," deserved or not.) For those interested, the RfC was WP:Requests for comment/GoRight, and it was closed by admin Ncmvocalist. --Abd (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that this RfC was supported (endorsed) by some who had not taken the very substantial time necessary to examine Scuro's contribution history, and that of editors who've come into conflict with him. Doc James is merely the latest. Usually these editors have been new, and new editors make mistakes in a situation like this. So it's very clear, Kat, that Doc James' behavior is problematic. However, RfC is, in my view, and for him, way premature, it's pulling out an elephant gun to swat a fly. I see extensive efforts on Doc James' part to be cooperative. But Scuro is not a new editor, he's been at his single-purpose editing, with a strong POV, for a long time, and has had a major and possibly negative impact on the articles related to attention deficit disorder. I'm suggesting to Scuro that he withdraw this RfC, without prejudice, and that the increased attention this has brought, from experienced editors, will allow disputes with actual article editing to be resolved in simpler ways. Among other things, I'll be personally making an effort to restrain Doc James, if that's necessary. If this RfC continues, it will bring focused attention on Scuro; perhaps that is necessary anyway, but I'd rather hope that his editing reforms, with guidance from sympathetic editors whom he might trust, and without the disruption of an RfC. He's not likely to trust me, because I've pointed out the problems before, and he took them as personal attacks. Indeed, he refers, apparently, to me, on his User page, which I don't think I've ever seen before. User:Allemandtando placed a banner at the top of his user page that referred to me, that's the closest I've seen. And he, of course, was a sock of a banned user. Scuro is, I have no reason to doubt, a "single account user," but what I actually had written was single purpose account, which is blatantly obvious, and he admits it. That's not an attack at all, but that has not stopped him from calling it such, elsewhere. --Abd (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the difference between "this person does not violate WP:SOCK" and "this person only edits in one area". The two common phrases are easily confused by those that are in a rush or not paying attention. May I recommend "agenda editor" as a substitute phrase for "single-purpose account"? It originated from a discussion about Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

deflection and owning your own behaviour

We still wait to hear Jhm649 own up to his own behaviour. There is lots of deflection. The greater the transgression the greater the urgency. We have gone through a mediation Cabal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-10-09_Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder where Jhm649 didn't own any of his own behaviour. I think a major first step, that would show good faith, is for Jhm649 to earnestly go over each citation, and admit to all past errors documented on this RFC.--scuro (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The statement that JMH made "they must have druged you real good" (sic) is a prime example where he has failed to take responsibility and either apologize or strike out (or even acknowledge it) It is over the top in my books and creates a very poisonous atmosphere to edit in.--Vannin (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The silence is deafening. This is a community, we are neighbours, and even if we hold polar opposite views from one another, the wiki way is to find a way to get along. How can that happen when one party never makes amends, has never verbally conceded a point to me, yet tees off on me on a regular basis?--scuro (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

RfCs cannot force anyone to do anything. Jhm649 does not even have to participate.

You need to think closely and concretely about what problem you're trying to solve. Generally, trying to shame an editor into making abject apologies doesn't work. Snide and sarcastic responses only make resolution less likely (well, that and they make you appear like a prickly, difficult editor when/if this case goes to ArbCom). What is the minimum that you really need to deal with the problems at the affected article? What sorts of concrete actions do you think he might agree to? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

For sure Jhm649 does not have to participate. But, In most cases, editors named in an RfC are expected to respond to it. The Arbitration Committee considers a response or lack of it, as well as the comments and endorsements from the community, if the matter ends up being escalated to arbitration. We are new at this and your policy input is appreciated. What is not appreciated is a judgmental characterization of other contributors input in this RFC. If you want to make specific accusations using terms such "snide" and "sarcastic", I would suggest that you give evidence and context on why you believe your assumptions hold any water. I am being very earnest in this RFC. I have endured ongoing harassment and have spent a lot of time documenting several examples of a wide ranging variety of transgressions. Numerous attempts of personal and informal mediation (med cab) have been attempted and to date he has not owned any of his behaviour. Granted, that is his choice to do so.

Are you aware of all of this and have you taken time to review the case and the evidence?--scuro (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Jmh649 is permitted to dig a hole for himself that is just as deep as he chooses; Wikipedia gives that right to every editor. But your choice to make remarks during this process like "The silence is deafening" is not going to endear you to ArbCom. (They'll doubtless understand the temptation, but scrupulously polite and even friendly behavior puts you in a better position.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"What is the minimum that you really need to deal with the problems at the affected article"? - This is not a policy and conventions RFC. It is not about the article. This is a user RFC. As I have previously stated, ("from my viewpoint a lot of that behaviour is simply inexcusable. These are blatant transgressions of wiki policy and can't be explained away by context, or lopsidedness....hopefully as we go through this process, he will earnestly commitment to wikipedian consensus building and civility"). In a nutshell there must be a meaningful change in behaviour.

As to my choice of words, granted the personification may have been hyperbolic. Still, he has never explained why he acts the way he does, apologized, or even owned up to his actions. For those of us who have endured or witnessed this for an extended period, we have wanted change for a long time. In such instances, self-inhibition is not always working perfectly, please excuse that transgression. I would suggest however in a user RFC, that an unknown entity to either party, not sling around adjectives personally characterizing contributors. That could be construed as "stirring the pot".--scuro (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So what I'm hearing from you is that you could be a productive editor right now, even if this RfC were closed immediately. I base this on your statement above that nothing is impeding your work at ADHD. You're unhappy with this editor, who apparently isn't setting world records for pleasant cooperation, but there's no actual problem to be solved here. Is that right?

RfC/U's are part of dispute resolution. This process is designed to solve specific, concrete problems so you can get back to work already. If there's no dispute to be resolved, then we're done here.

If, on the other hand, you find that an editor's behavior is actually impeding your work at an article, then perhaps you could think for a minute about what exactly needs to be changed so that you can improve the article -- not, I point out, so that we'll all feel respected and affirmed, or so that you can get explanations for another person's behavior, or so that we can determine once again that the "anyone" in the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" doubtless includes a handful of jerks: just so that you can improve the article.

So: What kind of help do you need to get useful work done? Or are we done here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

So: What kind of help do you need to get useful work done? That is an excellent question. I need Jmh649 to work collaboratively within our community. There is no reciprocity. Even in the short exchanges that you and I have already had, which got off on the wrong foot I may add, we are communicating and are starting to move towards a common goal. That doesn't happen on the ADHD page. Edits happen on every aspect of the page and any sort of desired group goal is ignored. Edits are mostly made without communication in talk and if there is communication it almost always is post-edit. As you can see in our short communication, I have already verbally conceded a point to you. That hasn't ever happened with Jmh649. He will argue a point to the 9th degree, but even when it has been demonstrated that his position is lacking, he never concedes a point and state as much. He will simply stop posting on that thread. Frustratingly, if you try to change what is on the page he will most likely revert it. To which he will post, something like, "it's been discussed". As an editor you are left with the choice of going into an all out edit war or seeking help. There is also the sheer volume of edits. Recently over 50 were done in a day and none with an edit summary in talk. This is not unusual. One of my first communications with Jhm649 was simply to slow it down a bit. I got absolutely no response to that line of reasoning. Now to top it all off, he takes regular verbal jabs at you, some of them nasty. Should wikipedia not be a place free of harassment? Simply put, on the adhd page he demonstrates very little team behavior on a medium that requires a team approach. Can you work around him on the ADHD article? Several editors have tried but I believe only Jhm649 continues to edit on a consistent basis.--scuro (talk) 05:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick question, because I've only got a few seconds: Are you aware that there's no actual requirement that any editor discuss his/her plans in advance, or explain the changes on an article's talk page?

It sounds to me like the problem here is that Jmh649 isn't (in your opinion) adequately taking your views into account while he's working. (Generally, people don't complain about 'not working collaboratively' when the other editor is doing exactly what they want.) Does that sound like the fundamental problem to you? A lack of attention to your (which of course might be shared by more people than you) views? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

So it is appropriate to say "they must have druged you good" and to be generally insulting to fellow editors? --Vannin (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Vannin, Doc James has acknowledged being careless with his comments. In considering "being generally insulting," it's necessary to look at the context. While we should always be civil, incivility breeds incivility, and we should be very careful about examining the behavior of one editor with a magnifying glass, while not looking at the context. Doc James has claimed that his comments, we might easily consider or agree were insulting, were responses to incivility on the part of Scuro. Sure, that doesn't make them right. However, to consider a neutral comment by WhatamIdoing to be some justification of other bad behavior on the part of Doc James, not really related, is worrisome. What's going on, Vannin? --Abd (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

At the time I put this in, no acknowledgement had actually been made and the issue of the behaviour seemed to be being ignored (and further comments were still being made about me). Shortly after there was a lot of action and mentors have stepped in and JMH has apologized and the statements have been stricken, which makes a big difference to me.--Vannin (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Vannin, even if you were dealing with a certified jerk (on which point I have little information and therefore no opinion), the real goal here is to get back to work, not to have a public kiss-and-make-up session. Extracting an apology for rude remarks does not solve the real problem. It's a truism among psychologists that people don't get divorced because one spouse failed to take out the trash; similarly, it's my opinion that individual rude remarks don't prompt RfC/U's. If we deal with the rude remarks, and ignore the big picture, then there will be another RfC in the near future. Consequently, my questions are intended to find out what the "big picture" problem actually is. I think that the rude remarks (which I deprecate) are just symptoms of the real problem.

Scuro, I still need an answer to my question. If you felt like Jmh649 were sufficiently respectful of your opinion, would any of this have happened? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Scuro

Here are a few others who have had issues:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scuro&diff=129655200&oldid=129650411

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive46#User:Scuro_reported_by_User:KonradG_.28Result:no_vio.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive481

--Doc James (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Efforts to remove discussion about the controversial nature of psychiatric disorder

Scuro has attempted to remove discussion of controversy in psychiatry from many pages not just ADHD.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biopsychiatry_controversy#contrived_controversy.3F

After it was discussed at length

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biopsychiatry_controversy/Archive2#RfC:_majority_viewpoint_on_the_validity_of_the_biopsychiatric_model_of_psychiatry

--Doc James (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Differentials and moving forward

If we are going to earnestly try and resolve this, it may take some time. There should be some ground rules such as paraphrasing the words of others should be avoided. I believe differentials should also be used in an RFC. I've looked at some of the citations provided and it is not at all clear what exactly we are to examine.

Also if we are going to resolve this, there needs to be order. A mediator is needed. I'm open to suggestions.--scuro (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Paraphrasing is sometimes extremely helpful: When someone paraphrases your position incorrectly, then you know what you've miscommunicated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, are you a neutral party in this dispute?

Comments made by WhatamIdoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine:"If you've got an interest in reliable sources and/or ADHD, please let me invite you to join the fray at Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. There's a pretty ugly dynamic between the article's usual editors right now, and the addition of a few level-headed people might resolve things (and even improve the article)".[5]--scuro (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Scuro, that's a comment that, on its face, would show neutrality. As a result of looking into this affair more deeply, I've noticed things that explain to me the entire history of your account. As I've noted before, you are a single-purpose account. You've treated this in the past as if it were an insult or attack, but it's just a description, though it has some implications, and you have essentially not only acknowledged it, but have explained it. It's the explanation that I just noticed, it's on your user page, permanent link. SPAs are focused on a particular topic; sometimes this means that they have an agenda or axe to grind. You have concluded, from your personal trauma, that mental illness is "real," and that information that may appear to contradict this is "disinformation," and, I'll add, personally unsettling to you. Your interest here isn't neutrality, it is a POV. It happens to be a POV that is more or less mainstream, but that makes it all the more dangerous, if unrestrained. The agenda adds to your work an edge, an incivility, that sometimes brings incivility in response, hence a very common theme for you: you are being attacked. As Doc James has pointed out, you, yourself, attack, and when there is response pointing this out, you complain about "discussion of the editor instead of the content."

None of this means that Doc James' conduct has been proper. But, as you noted, he's new. He's made mistakes that are of a kind actually common among experts who decide to clean up a Wikipedia article, but don't know the community culture and guidelines, and run into resistance from someone like you. He'll learn. (He also has a problem with his writing -- it's been called a spelling problem, but it's not that simple -- that can make it irritating, which may be more difficult to fix, actually, what he's said about it indicates that it is due to long habits of speed-writing, something a doctor might indeed do, but I suspect there is more to it than that.)

In this very thread you make an attempt to impugn the participation of WhatamIdoing, and you've been doing this kind of thing for a long time. It seems that you see the community in black and white terms: those on the right side, i.e., your side, and those on the wrong side. One good thing about this RfC is that it may force the community to make a statement. However, the statement may not be what you seek. Here, editor behavior is the topic, and that includes the behavior of all editors. This particular RfC is focused on Doc James, but if this issue then goes to ArbComm, I'd predict that you will be, at the least, topic-banned from editing articles in your area of interest. I do not seek or value this outcome; if you'll try to look at my behavior with respect to you in the past, you'd know this. Rather, I seek and value your constructive participation, that you learn to let go a little, seek consensus -- which includes finding agreement with editors whose position you are inclined to see as "disinformation" or deception, and generally follow your own advice first, before expecting others to follow it. I.e., focus on the edits, not the editors.

I'm suggesting that you withdraw this RfC, because I think the problems with Doc James can be resolved simply by more experienced editors coaching him a bit. If not, well, he'll face his own music. But suit yourself; however, when you stitch the suit, you may have to wear it. Make sure it's one you can be comfortable with. If the RfC continues, I'd consider it an unpleasant obligation to open a parallel RfC on your behavior (and note that I can't do this on my own). This is not fun, at all. I'd much rather be editing articles, and one RfC can replace days of article editing. --Abd (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO I'm as neutral as they come: I have an essentially average level of understanding about ADHD, I don't care what happens to the article so long as it complies with Wikipedia's core policies, and I don't care what happens to any of the editors involved.

I do care that edit wars stop and that editors be able to get back to work.

This page is on my watchlist because WP:RFC/U is on my watchlist. I ignore uncertifed RfC/U's and read at least half of all certified RfC/U's, partly because many people (like, for example, all the people involved in this one) don't actually know how RfC/U's work.

If that doesn't meet your notion of "neutrality", then perhaps you could explain what your definition is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO I'm as neutral as they come. Right...so you don't focus on the contributor and escalate situations? Explain this then. "Every editor at WP:MEDRS is both intelligent and experienced and apparently every editor except yourself is familiar with this convention."[6]--scuro (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain what your current proposal at MEDRS has to do with why I read RFC/U pages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Those two things have nothing to do with each other. A biased focus on contributors is what I was getting at. There is a pattern developing.--scuro (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarity: You have opened an RFC/User and you have insisted several times that this dispute is about the editors' behavior instead of content. But you simultaneously insist that no comments be made about the involved editors' behavior -- or, perhaps more precisely, that in direct contravention of the close scrutiny on all involved editors clause for User RFCs, that your own conduct be exempt from any sort of comment, including compliments related to what you claim is a wholly unrelated discussion at WT:MEDRS. Am I right? That having filed an RFC/User, you demand that no one comment on the involved users? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you put words in my mouth, you already have the answers you are seeking.--scuro (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Doc James. are you playing fair?

Comments made by Doc James at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, I would like to thank WhatamIdoing for mentioned this as article could definitely use some more eyes. It has very frustrating ever since I began editing. There is one editor Scuro who spends much of his time changing the rewording edits that are referenced to published research so that they no longer match the reference. Then edit wars when you correct it. Accuses you are edit warring. Threatens other editors with reprimands on a frequent basis. He an Vannin are friends and support one another.

I have lost my patient with these two editors a number of times. I have dealt with comments saying that NICE guildlines are "nice" but that since they controvince the American literature they "prove that the UK is far behind the USA in medical science" and "that UBC in not a world leading research center and therefore their research shouldn't be allowed" or "that since a source is 6 - 8 years out one should be able to use it" or "or that only two scientist agree that ADHD is controversial and it is probably even less then that" or "that Timmins since he is a Scientology and an antipschiatrist everything he publishes even in the British Journal of Psychiatry should be discounted" or " or that since Dr. Barkleys is a world leader in ADHD that one should be able to quote his personal web page or power point presentations and then I get attacked when I ask that people quote his published literature"

All this has happened with exclamations that I should deal with content rather then editors. A least three other editors have had this problems. I have asked for more eyes many months ago at the WP Med page. I also brought forwards an ANI.

P.S. I have paraphrased the comments.[7]--scuro (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

These are some of the issues. I could find the direct reference to each one but do not have the energy to go threw it all.--Doc James (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Scuro, asking for help at the relevant WikiProject is "playing fair". Contacting a WikiProject is specifically recommended at WP:Dispute resolution#Turn_to_others_for_help.

I begin to wonder why you object. Are you concerned that the involvement of additional experienced and knowledgeable editors will interfere with your POV? Usually, I find that the prospect of adding informed, experienced editors to a dispute is welcomed with open arms by all those that want the dispute resolved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Insults

I have posted this on scuro talk page but we can address it here aswell. I would like to begin by saying that I am open to mediation. I will admit that I have not taken Scuro seriously a number of times. I did when I started however my good faith was eroded over time.

When it comes to insult both Scuro and Vannin talk about not getting personal then they insult my academic institution and my friends / colleges and they insult me. For your information I am from the University of British Columbia. I however have not written for the therapeutics initiative but do personally know the authors.

I also get continuous subtle insult from Scuro. For example in the last day he states "we all know better" "anyone with a basic understanding of scientific methodology would understand all of this". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#Therapeutics_Initiative_.28UBC.29_citation_is_a_poor_reference.3F This is not dealing with content. He then comment on my talk page: "You are new, we are forgiving." I do not need to be patronized. He has made numerous treats and I have admit I have egged him on. I part in a hope to draw attention to these issues.

How is this not insulting? He has continued with these petty insults all trough out the ANI, the mediation, and now the RfC. I was very accommodating to his questions when we started but but no clarity was ever gained from our discussion. I went to the ANI and tried to draw more editors to this page with no success.

I was and am open to mediation but the real issues here is what is considered a reasonable reference has never been dealt with or addressed. Hopefully now that there are more editors this can be dealt with and we can move forwards.

Doc James (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Previous editor who has had issue

User talk:Ss06470

User talk:92.4.125.88

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAttention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder%3A_controversies&diff=193993742&oldid=193414535

--Doc James (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue

We keep dealing with the same issue over and over. This is what is frustrating. This is the issue: "IS ADHD CONTROVERSIAL?". This debate took place before I arrived with editors fading away / worn out. When I first arrived all mention of controversy was very very lope sided threw numerous edits by a couple of editors. I attempted to correct this using excellent sources.

NICE guide lines, US government, British Journal of Psychiatry.

Here is some of the debate that took place which I was involved in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#More_opinions_needed_for_disputes_on_controversies_article --Doc James (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm confused. We have an entire article, Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies. But there's a serious question at ADHD about whether or not there are controversies about ADHD? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. There is controversy and there is controversy. There has been quite a bit of effort from inexperienced editors to insert controversy over the very existence of ADHD. There are two aspects to this: first of all, such controversy exists, notably. However, that's not a scientific controversy, it's a popular and political one, for the most part. So such controversy, since it exists, which is provable from notable sources, reliable on that level, properly belongs in the Controversies article; its mention in the ADHD article, which is about the condition, should be the briefest, done in summary style probably in a section on Controversies. To me, the objection is preposterous, mostly based a total misunderstanding of what a diagnostic category is. The confusion is over a belief that ADHD is a "disease," and critics on this level really emphasize that word, disease. ADHD doesn't have much of a physiologic basis for diagnosis, it's a behavioral disorder. These are old disputes that were generally settled long ago. "Neurological" includes behavior with no known specific physical basis, other than the simple fact that behavior necessarily involves the nervous system. So ADHD is a "neurobehavioral disorder," and there is RS for that. Nevertheless, the standard for Wikipedia text is really editorial consensus, which is why incivility is so poisonous, it interrupts that process, as does edit warring.

Still on the matter of the existence of ADHD, there is some legitimate disagreement over the boundaries of the disorder. The DSM categories can be a bit fuzzy and subjective, hence, also, the wide variation in estimates of ADHD frequency, and, possibly, overtreatment as well. But treatment is part of the second controversy.

Then there is controversy over the causes of ADHD and its treatment. A psychiatrist and published author, Dr. Simon Sobo, was active with the ADHD articles for a time, and became highly frustrated over Scuro's behavior. He also became, sometimes, somewhat uncivil. (He also asked me for help, and wanted me to watch the articles in his absence, but that's not practical for me, I could only do so much.) Sobo has written about the knee-jerk overtreatment of ADHD, and he writes as an insider, as a member of the psychiatric establishment, not from the fringe. But because he's questioning "common practice," his edits were seen as fringe, to an editor bent on defending the article from fringe views. It was an error. Sobo was treated as if he were anti-drug, when, in fact, he prescribes the common drugs for ADHD, just not exclusively. I have personal experience here, to know that Sobo is right. I was first diagnosed with ADHD about ten years ago, and the psychiatrist simply prescribed drugs for me. Probably too high a dose of methylphenidate, as one trial seemed to me, and we settled on bupropion, which I've now taken for years. And that was the end of the topic. No education on ADHD, for me, and no education of my family, the other two of the three important legs of ADHD treatment. Only recently did I realize what had been missed. When I got better attention, the difference was amazing. The bupropion, comparatively, made only a minor difference.

The fact is that a dedicated SPA can be difficult to handle; this is a generic Wikipedia problem, not confined to ADHD or Scuro, and I do not see the solution as blocking or topic-banning the editors involved, except as a last resort. In the past, Scuro has been responsive to both warnings and to advice from editors he perceives as being friendly, and his contributions can be very useful, provided that he's not allowed to drive away experts and other good-faith editors. The question is how to keep up the focus of neutral editors, or others who value NPOV above any personal POV, to prevent problems vis-a-vis newcomer like Doc James, when those of us who understand Wikipedia process better are diverted elsewhere. Had those who are now becoming aware of the situation been paying attention earlier, there would have been less disruption and almost certainly no RfC. Doc James is responding to my intervention; as an example, I advised him to strike offensive comments he'd made and, apparently, he did it immediately with the most offensive comment, the famous "druged" bad joke. He's been asking for help for a long time, starting with, ironically, Vannin. I think James was quite frustrated by encountering editors who were not aware of the long-term history and who -- understandably -- did not take the substantial time needed to review the history, but his responses have been more typical, in my view, of those who eventually learn to integrate well into the community, rather than those who will remain disruptive.

So, back to Controversy, there is controversy over the existence of ADHD, but not among those who understand what a diagnostic category is! There is also some level of controversy over whether or not this should be called a disorder rather than simply a different style of thinking, possibly a genetic variation. And then there is controversy over the nature, cause, and treatment of the disorder. The controversies are properly, still, covered more completely in the main article on the Controversy, with summary style in the ADHD article. Thus all that fuss over sources on this really belongs with the Controversies article, which being an article on opinions, has somewhat different standards for inclusion. It's not a medical article, purely! Sections which are summarizing an article (which includes the lead) should generally not be sourced; rather, the rest of the article (for the lead) or the main article (for a subtopic summary) should have the sources. The summary should be a neutral summary, enjoying consensus. Kept brief, it shouldn't create a problem with imbalance.

Historically, the Controversy article was started to shift most of the edit warring to a subarticle. In such an article, the topic being Controversy itself, it becomes possible to include more notable opinion or research than is appropriate in the article on the overall topic, because it is less likely to create a problem with WP:WEIGHT, a guideline which is often asserted to suppress sourced text when it's all crammed into one article. However, then, the Controversy article was chipped away with wikilawyering about sources for it, and regular efforts to merge it back. When edit wars and similar editing takes place without consensus ever being found, article quality suffers, often greatly, as clear, informative, interesting, and verifiable text is chopped up according to technical criteria being used to serve an agenda. --Abd (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Scuro: Would you please tell me whether you personally think that there are controversies associated with ADHD? Note that I'm not asking whether there should be controversies about ADHD. The question is whether or not such controversies exist, not matter how baseless you might think them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective, the controversy issue has not been the key point behind the RFC. It is the latest topic, but there were others before it, and I was finding it difficult to work with JMH independent of, and preceding, the Scuro-controversy issue. I'm not sure that it is helpful at this point to go into detail because of the momentum now to move forward, and it looks like there will be more mentoring and help. As I said at the top of the page, that was my motivation to sign onto the RFC. It may be more helpful to look at how that will happen--Vannin (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I think at the moment. I have ideas but they change with time as I learn more. Jhm649 has altered my perspective in talk. I'm sure that if we go through mediation, it will change some more. It's a huge topic.--scuro (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Your point of view on this content issue matters to me. I would like to know what it is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Define controversy, controversy as defined by the dictionary or controversy as used by wikipedia, in that there is a true minority opinion.--scuro (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm content with the definition at Controversy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"A controversy or dispute is a commencement of a conflict between statements of accepted fact and a new or unaccepted proposal that disagrees with, argues against, or debates the accepted knowledge or opinion". Using that definition from your link I'd have to say that EVERYTHING about ADHD is controversial. Scientology as it's mandate for existence disagrees with virtually any accepted piece of knowledge about Psychiatry. They have written extensively on ADHD. There are many groups and organizations that also don't accept the standard viewpoint about ADHD. Taken as a whole, I'd be hard pressed to find one issue related to ADHD that they would all agree with. But then again virtually any issue is controversial using the definition you supplied. Type "love" and "controversy" into google. Or try "kittens" and controversy. "Butterflies"? "Yarn"? Gardening"? Should we have a major controversy section with every article on wikipedia? Wikipedia looks for a threshold for controversy and that would be minority opinion. Fringe opinion can be noted but should be treated as fringe opinion.--scuro (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that we agree that according to the usual definitions, there are controversies associated with ADHD. I don't, however think that all opponents are fringe-y and should therefore be excluded. "Are most kids accurately diagnosed?" is not exactly a fringe question. "Should most kids with ADHD be on medications?" is not exactly a fringe question. Furthermore, Wikipedia looks not for a particular threshold, but for what the reliable sources say. And a good number of the normal reliable sources (including, for example, my local newspaper) seem to think that there are valid minority viewpoints. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There are zoodles of sources, which taken as a whole, could be shown to state that EVERYTHING about ADHD is controversial. But what a crappy article that would be. Literally every second sentence would dispute the mainstream viewpoint preceding it. I could write that article. Name any major issue with regards to ADHD. I can find you a source, probably 10 which disputes it. The take away for the reader would be that everything is uncertain about ADHD. Generally speaking the major pillars of society accept ADHD and the standard viewpoint of majority opinion. If the issue is can fringe opinion have undue weight on this article, it's time for an administrator. Do not for a second believe that I don't think there is true minority opinion on the issues. Now understand, I didn't state all opposing viewpoints are "fringe-y", and although you couched that sentence to avoid naming me, the inference is clear. The tactic is not appreciated.--scuro (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I couched what question to avoid naming you? I see no question in my reply. Every single sentence ends in a period. (BTW, I don't actually have any qualms about calling you, by name, on mistakes that I think you make. I wouldn't want you to bother looking for subtle hints; it's not my style.)

IMO, our WP:DUE requires us to acknowledge the controversies that exist, or are perceived to exist according to WP:RSs, even if appropriate scientific information shows them unfounded. If the reader leaves the article thinking that every single point about ADHD has been duly haggled over by the various opposing entities, then this would simply be accurate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki's fringe viewpoint WP:FRINGE does not require that anything called controversial, makes it to an article. Such issues can have their own article if need be. Or would you argue that the "controversy" over brain damage and use of stimulants drugs should make it onto the page because we need to acknowledge all opponent viewpoints? I do believe that notable viewpoints, such as the Hunter-Gatherer theory should make it onto the page because it is notable, even though it is most likely bogus. In fact, it was I who put that theory and the Neurotypical theory on the page. I was also the one who added the controversy over toddler use of stimulants onto the article. I don't think the characterization that I see all opposition to mainstream viewpoints as "fringe-y" holds water.--scuro (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What we need to do

What I think we need to do, now that we have more editors, is to discuss this issue in earnest with everyone getting one comment before a second is added. If a conclusion on this point is reach and someone breaches this agreement they get banned from editing on all psych / medicine related pages.

--Doc James (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sort of. Here is what happens: after an RfC has been open for perhaps a month, and if a consensus is apparent, an administrator (usually) will close the discussion and state the consensus, and becomes responsible for enforcing it. If the closure is questionable, that might be considered at AN/I, but AN/I can be a bit of a brawl, it's not very reliable. This is an RfC on your behavior, Doc. I've seen some precedent that it cannot, by itself, create a restriction on someone else's behavior, even if that behavior was worse than yours. This is not a content RfC, which would create an effective local content guideline where editor violation of consensus could become a blockable offense. It's a user RfC, and considers, ultimately, only the behavior of the named user, though, obviously, examination of the behavior of the complaining editor(s) can become relevant. So this RfC cannot create, on its face, an agreement that is binding on anyone except you. (This is a pretty rough analysis, I've only participated in a few RfCs, plus I've looked at some after the fact, when an issue went on up to ArbComm).

My suggestion to you is that at this point you largely ignore this RfC, but do respond briefly and non-defensively to questions or acknowledge errors you have made, or to very briefly and carefully point out relevant facts with evidence (usually diffs). Treat all comments as being made in good faith. Do not counterattack. Let others defend you, see Meatball:DefendEachOther. Ignore what may seem to you like attacks on the part of Scuro. Let the consequences of them, if any, fall upon him naturally, instead of with your involvement.

And one more suggestion. Proofread your writing before saving it, always use Preview. Your errors make you look ignorant and careless. I don't think that's true, but politically, it's very harmful to your image. And politics makes a difference here. In the two sentences in your comment above, there are two grammatical errors. Can you spot them? If not, given your level of education, you probably have an attention disorder (like ADHD, but different) that causes you to read what you intended or expect instead of what's actually there. No blame, lots of us have such! There is, in my opinion, a third error, but it's common usage on Wikipedia, in Talk or sometimes WP space. --Abd (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Abd

Last night I told Abd I would appreciate it if he avoided all contact with me.[8]. Today he enters this RFC with several lengthy posts. Abd, I'd kindly ask you also to avoid this Rfc.--scuro (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In a word, Scuro, no. This is not your RfC, it is a community process which you started, and it is about User:jmh649. You do not own it, and you have no right at all to inhibit participation here, and I'm under no obligation to refrain here. If you don't want contact with me, and consider this to be contact, go away. I posted to your Talk page with sincere advice. I remember now that you may have, in the past, requested that I not do so, so I apologize for that, I would not have done it had I remembered, unless I had a formal warning to deliver. This is not "contact with you," it is participation in community process. I am unusual here, and thus still needed, because I'm very familiar with your long-term history, this isn't the first time you've had a dispute with a user similar to this, not the first time that you have complained about the behavior of an editor who criticizes your own. Frankly, I'd prefer to avoid dredging all that up, which is one reason I've been encouraging you to drop this RfC -- and those who certified it might also reconsider. There is still not substantial comment in it, it's not too late. It's clear that Doc James, as a new editor, made quite a few mistakes, but it looks to me like he's turned from that, and I'm encouraging him to be more explicit about it, and to apologize for inappropriate comments. You are being advised by many editors to back off. Do it. --Abd (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Abd is right. Scuro, you simply cannot demand that other editors not participate in RfCs. Demanding that of an editor whom you perceive as being "against you" is particularly improper. As far as I'm concerned, you were amply warned that RfC/U's have a tendency to take a turn like this: An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors.

Again, I recommend that you make an effort to be particularly friendly and polite on these pages. Accepting the involvement of all interested editors is a very small, but definitely necessary, first step in the direction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective I am attempting to achieve one major goal. I assume the other contributors also involved in the med cab are also trying to achieve this goal. The goal is to have peace on the ADHD page...hopefully doing that while following wiki guidelines. I have asked that Abd kindly not participate. This is a request that I believe will help us achieve our goal far more quickly, and this is why I have made the request.--scuro (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I noticed that you asked, Scuro, using polite language, you did not demand. However, I think it likely that nearly all editors participating here would agree that my contribution has been positive. You are seeing it only, I suspect, from your own perspective. You'd clearly be more comfortable if I stayed away, but, while your personal comfort is important, it does not override the needs of the project. The main role I've played here is to reach Doc James, to assure him that I understand the problems he faced, that his responses were not stupid or perverse, even if they violated guidelines and were frustrating to other editors. In order to establish credibility with him, it was necessary that I intervene in this process, which includes communicating with you. It looks to me like nobody else was doing that, that's what was missing. Doc James himself, as I look back over his edits, was perplexed, didn't know how to proceed. He asked Vannin for help, which is a bit ironic; I think the problem there was that Vannin did not see -- it would take a lot of work -- the long-term issues and only saw the immediate: Doc James' inexperienced but assertive editing style; combine inexperienced with assertive, problems are inevitable. But that's not usually hard to fix, if the new editor is able to listen. Vannin, I am confident, will continue to be very helpful. Let it go, Scuro. I'm not out to get you, if I wanted you out of here, I'd have watched you closely and would have used any of many possible incidents against you. It's obvious that I make you uncomfortable, and I take no pleasure in that. I can say that you would benefit if you could learn to extract what is useful for you from what I write, but that, of course, is totally up to you. Generally, you are not obligated to read anything I write, and you can safely ignore it, most of the time, and probably should ignore it if it is going to upset you. If there was something important in it, others will tell you. There are obvious exceptions: if I place a warning on your Talk page, given that you have asked me not to post there, take it seriously. It will be brief. But I also don't think that this will be necessary. --Abd (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving forwards

I am agreeing to act more civil and follow wiki rules.

We however still have content issues that must dealt with. Unreferenced insults of authors and institutions that do not hold your point of view is in my mind unacceptable and inappropriate.

I am well aware that much of the references and information I have added document and discuss the controversy. I have done this as this discussion was exceedingly lacking. Many others have commented on this point over the last few years.

Doc James (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Good, in part, Doc. Be very careful about words like "unacceptable." It implies that you might war against something you perceive to be that way, regardless of community consensus. The community will not allow "unreferenced insults" in articles, if that is what they really are. In Talk pages, we allow almost everything, our necessary freedom of speech requires it, provided that these comments don't go beyond limits. An editor can claim that an author or institution (as distinct from a Wikipedian, another editor) is incompetent or biased, and it's routinely accepted, it's simply part of the editorial process. If I thought that the entire medical profession was in the pocket of the drug companies, I could say that in Talk, thus insulting, perhaps, you and your friends, but not personally. However, that opinion, unless backed with reliable source, wouldn't mean much, it would be dicta. Take it as such, ignore it, don't take it personally.

Yes, there are content issues. We can deal with them in two ways: one at a time is the usual one. One small issue at a time. It's difficult to find consensus, all at once, on larger issues. The other way is to draft an alternate article, and find consensus -- or at least a majority opinion! -- to substitute it for the existing article. This, also, isn't easy, but there would be a lot of sources and text for this new article, if one looks through history and pulls together the best of what's been in the articles at various times. When I looked about six months ago or so, it seemed to me that some earlier versions were, at least, more interesting. That's important too! When drafting such an alternate article, it's probably best if one or two congenial editors work on it at first; and in user space, it is possible to make such a restriction. {"I'm putting together a draft here, please don't disrupt it!") (There is nothing to prevent other groups of editors from working simultaneously on an alternate draft, if they really don't like what the small group is doing.) The test is when discussion begins on substitution, and, if agreement can't be found, there can be an RfC on the question. Hopefully, then, a rough consensus can be found and a decision made.

Both approaches can proceed simultaneously. Just remember: keep it civil, rigorously, yourself, regardless of what others are doing, and don't edit war, be patient, seek consensus to the greatest degree practical and consistent with upholding basic principles and guidelines.

One of the problems here was that you saw problems with the articles (I'm sure there were problems with the articles!), and you began working intensively to fix them. That was the "manic editing." It's hard to digest so much at once, it irritates editors who have been watching an article. It's one thing to look at a diff with a single edit in it, and a single reference, and then, perhaps, to discuss, debate, or agree on that, and another to look at a dozen changes made all at once, or in immediate succession. So make one change at a time, editing an existing article, and let the smoke clear before moving on. Deliberative assemblies learn to consider one issue at a time, otherwise debate becomes interminable. The whole-article-revision approach is really a variation on this, where the question has become very simple: which article is better, this one or that one? --Abd (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am encouraged by Jhm649's statement.--scuro (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Good. I'm encouraged by Scuro's statement. We are not out of the woods, I'd say, but we can see a path. Let's walk it, see where it goes. If one of us steps off the path, others will remind us. I may or may not participate in actual editing of the articles, but any party should feel free to ping me if problems appear. James, I assume, will not make massive edits without consensus, he'll take it slowly, preferably one issue at a time, where there is any reasonable expectation of disagreement. He will use edit summaries that are civil and informative. He will discuss any edit he considers possibly controversial in Talk. He may make the edit, but he will tolerate and not take offense at reversion and will not insist by repeating the edit without first finding consensus or at least agreement (and then it would be better that the agreeing editor makes the revert, and even better if such edits incorporate or reflect or respond to the criticism, the reasons for the revert.) Whenever reverting, he will explain why in article Talk, if an edit summary would be too brief. He will follow, at least temporarily, a voluntary 1RR restriction, absent an emergency, such as a biographies of living persons violation. What I've suggested James will do is what experienced editors are expected to do, so that covers Scuro as well. James, I'm hoping, will also proofread his own edits using Preview, including Talk page edits. He will scrupulously avoid incivility or even criticism of other editors, even if it is arguably necessary; rather, when he has a problem with the behavior of another editor that can't be resolved immediately by simple and cautiously polite discussion, he will ask for advice or help from another experienced editor and will not insist on his own. He will be tolerant and encouraging toward those who have less knowledge than him on the subject.

If it still seems necessary to him, I'd like to invite James to rewrite articles, as drafts. He can create these drafts in his own user space or in mine, as subpages. If it's in my space, he could allow open editing, which would then be mediated by me if disputes arise. In his own space, he's in charge of that draft, similarly. Just as Scuro or any other editor would be with respect to a draft in his space. Drafts won't be substituted by him for the current article without discussion and consensus or at least majority opinion. (In advance of an RfC on the topic.) He will not try to massively rewrite the articles in situ. Okay? Anything missing? --Abd (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Aren't we missing Jmh649's actual agreement to this long list of specific, concrete, measurable behaviors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree to a number of them. Happy to only do one revert and discuss on talk. Not so sure about editing in other areas. I find it best to do think a bit at a time. I do not plan to do any massive rewrites. And will talk about any contentious changes. Doc James (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Separate issues

Scuro asked me to comment here. Scuro also asked who I am and why I got involved with the disputes between Scuro and Jmh649 (Doc James). Re who I am, see my contributions. While giving WhatamIdoing a trophy for a new article, I saw on her talk page some discussion of this RFC. Here I see that two related but separate issues are conflated, and no progress being made. These two issues are (1) a content dispute, and (2) user behavior. Scuro asked why change direction 90 degrees, and why start a separate process to mediate the content dispute. Here is my answer. This RFC/U is about user behavior. I think both editors care more about ADHD, which is good. I propose that both editors abandon this RFC/U and request formal mediation of the content dispute. I propose that both Scuro and Jmh649 promise to refrain from personal remarks of any kind, including indirect remarks ("anyone should be able to see", etc). I propose that they refrain even from positive remarks; in circumstances such as these, positive remarks may be received as patronizing. I propose formal mediation because an experienced mediator would help all parties focus on the content dispute. Also, the structure of the formal mediation process would require both Scuro and Jmh649 to declare clearly what they consider to be the real issues in the content dispute. --Una Smith (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Damn! Can't find any fault with this! Thanks Una. I'm hopeful that both editors will be cooperative and collaborative. I'm not sure that formal mediation is necessary, but if either editor is dissatisfied with how this proceeds, that's where it could go. I'd personally suggest going back to content issues and dealing with them one at a time, with more experienced editors helping guide that, as well as -- preferably gently -- warning editors when they stray toward incivility. Then, if disputes persist, there is content RfC, etc., as well as mediation for disputes which persist beyond that. --Abd (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable.--Doc James (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer Una. While ADHD is a topic that interests me, it is not why three contributors filed this rfc. The rfc is about how the ADHD page has become dysfunctional and a number of editors no longer contribute because of this. I am very encouraged by recent remarks that Jhm649 has made, real progress could be made and want him to know that I can envision a process where content ends up receiving more time then process.

I have noticed that my fellow contributors are sparsely posting here, if at all. I take this as a bad sign that the discussion has gone downhill and I will wait until they enter the process once more.--scuro (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

A page does not become dysfunctional solely because of one editor; if so, it's easy to block that editor. It's great that Scuro is encouraged. However, being surprised that editors don't want to dive into the middle of a catfight, and waiting for that, is odd. Scuro, you've been advised to essentially withdraw this RfC and proceed to start dealing directly with article issues, possibly with formal mediation. There is practically a consensus that this User RfC is not the solution. No rush, it could sit here, though I've advised that you actively withdraw it. This RfC wasn't "filed" by three contributors. It was filed by one, yourself, and then, in response to your appeal, two other editors, both of them not extensive long-term contributors to the ADHD article, certified that they had made efforts to resolve the problem. One of them has recently posted here with remarks that indicate he's pleased with progress on the part of Doc James; the other, an admin, has said elsewhere that it wasn't his intention to encourage the filing of this RfC. He'd noted the obvious problems with Doc James' editing, and I'm sure that was the basis for his certification. He did not make an overall judgment. It's time to move on, I'd say. If this stays open, it could create trouble for you or for others. It could always be reopened and recertified, though creating a new one with a clearer basis and better balance would be better, if needed. But I don't think it will be needed. Do you?

As to editors no longer contributing because of problems on the ADHD page, the problems on that page far predate Doc James' appearance there. He was editing with a difficult style, but it appears that this was mostly out of ignorance of the best way to do things here. I see him as rapidly learning. The incivility or, as he put it, his "loss of patients," was a response to the difficulties on that page, and he's not the only one to become frustrated with similar causes. So let's start to work collaboratively, going forward, including all editors, including yourself and those you've had trouble with. If someone is intransigent and doesn't respond to community feedback, we all know the address of WP:AN/I and other resources.

The attempted mediator, Xavexgoem, is the only person to file, so far, an "outside view," where he noted that he didn't see efforts to find consensus on the part of the "2 owners." To me, it looks like he moved to close the mediation because saw that neither major party was moving sufficiently to find consensus. I haven't endorsed his comment because I've seen quite a bit of attempt, on the face of it, by Doc James, going way back, to find a way to move forward and to work together. I also see, to be sure, statements of intention to move on from you, Scuro. So: move on! Both of you are free to do this, starting now.

I could certainly file an "outside view," but it would be nowhere near as brief as Xavexgoem's and it would probably be pretty extensive, either in a collapse box, as Elonka did in her user RfC, or using an evidence page as I did with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight. It's a royal pain to do that work, going over all those old edits and conflicts and edit wars and connecting them with recent history. I'll only do it if it is necessary; I see it as damage to the project if Doc James is driven away needlessly, just as I'd see your departure as a loss as well, though in a different way. He is an expert, as was Dr. Sobo.

Let me explain something: Dr. Sobo and Doc James are clinicians, they are not fringe, but they could perhaps be described as representing a liberal or reform or independent wing of the mainstream. Exclude them, and that side of things, and we get an article which reflects only drug company propaganda, vested-interest research, oversimplified popularization, etc. Exclude you, and we will quite possibly shift too far in the other direction. You are important, and so are they. I've been a Wikipedian since 2005, but I only began serious editing in 2007 when I discovered an article on a topic of special outside interest to me that was being owned, and used as a major propaganda channel (very effectively) by a cabal including the director of a funded advocacy organization, and sock puppets of a long-term banned user. So I became very active. I was, at that point, somewhat of an SPA myself, though I had enough long term history to avoid being pinned by that, and my real interest was in restoring balance, not in creating a hit piece on that organization and its topic. The major editors opposing me were blocked, but I intervened in the case of one of them, and my intervention was cited in the unblock; the other eventually came in out of the cold and registered, and I did not oppose that. Those POV editors are important, they are experts in the field, though with a serious bias, and the only thing that needs to be done is to see that they are restrained. The organization director has a clear conflict of interest, he grumbles when I find it necessary to point this out to stop him from over-use of reverts, but he lets go, he knows what will happen if he insists with article edits. In effect, we work together for the benefit of the project. That is what you and Doc James and others will do. Neither you nor he need to abandon your POVs with respect to ADHD. Those POVs are, in fact, useful, each of you are bias detectors with different sensitivities. Just remember, none of us own the article. Legally, it's owned by WikiMedia Foundation, and WMF has almost entirely ceded content decisions to the editorial community. That's *all* of us. You can be right as rain, but if you violate community norms, you'll be out of here. So many times I've seen editors blocked for edit warring to maintain text in conformance to guidelines. Edit warring is worse than violating content because it poisons the process that most effectively insures neutrality; if text enjoys broad consensus, it is probably neutral, and a sign of this is stable text. Not always. When it is not, the task is to shift and broaden the consensus through discussion and evidence and cooperative argument, not to push the text or demand changes or preservation; change consensus, it will be easy to change the text. Enough for now. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your premise that a single editor is unable to make a talk page dysfunctional: I've seen it happen. Normally, such editors eventually get blocked, but it can take well over six months to go through the proper channels to do this, and in the meantime, the article and associated talk page can certainly be seriously dysfunctional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

POV and NPOV

Abd touched on a very important point. One main objective of Wikipedia is the production of articles that are NPOV. To achieve NPOV, however, requires long cooperation between contributors who have opposing POVs. It is good to have such contributors involved, but essential that they remain civil. If any contributor has been alienated from working on a Wikipedia article, odds are the article is a long way from NPOV. Civility must come first. --Una Smith (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thanks. When we can get true cooperation from people with opposing POVs, we can find neutral text, because all parties -- except for the truly intransigent, which is much less common than some might think -- will say, yes, this is correct. People with fringe POVs generally know that they are fringe; indeed, such people will sometimes rail about the "establishment" or the like. It's just that they believe that the minority POV is the right one. So: what's the basis for this belief? Are there any facts behind it, or is it merely a "feeling" or due to affiliation? Those are both okay! However, I think most POV editors will realize that they can't put text into an article because of how they feel. Where POV editors really shine is with the recognition of imbalance, when a majority POV, for example, goes to far and excludes what might be contrary evidence. This is how science sometimes goes astray. I have a personal example, where my POV is still a minority one, though increasingly supported by research, as well as a review of how the majority POV came to be that. That's with the role of fat in the diet and its relationship to blood lipids and heart disease. Does saturated fat cause heart disease? Turns out there never was good evidence for this; but it's complicated. In any case, high-fat, low-carb diets are apparently as good or better than low-fat, high-carb diets in terms of blood lipid balance, i.e., risk factors for heart disease. But I still see plenty of diets and dieticians that assume we should stay away from saturated fats, probably because that was a clear official and government-supported consensus for roughly thirty years, and it became difficult to publish contrary research, because, after all, it might, on too-thin evidence, lead people to eat an unhealthy diet, with massive negative consequences. Unfortunately , it may turn out that the diets recommended instead were worse. It was a true mess. It's not my point to argue this here, but to point out a situation where an alleged scientific consensus, which was, in fact, the opinion of most nutritionists and official agencies and health associations (such as the American Heart Association or the American Diabetes Association), so it's legitimate to call that a "consensus," was probably wrong, and contrary research and scientific opinion, was suppressed. All in good faith, I'm sure. Gary Taubes has written a massive exploration of what happened, Good Calories, Bad Calories.

My point is that we should be careful not to over-exclude fringe opinion. It goes without saying that we should not imbalance articles toward fringe opinion, either, and POV editors help us to find the balance. A fringe POV editor will notice imbalance toward majority opinion, in particular; and if we listen, we can try to find text that satisfies this, legitimately. If the parties learn to trust each other, at least a little, it should get much easier. Ownership of articles is often well-meant, but it can be disastrous to consensus. --Abd (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

next steps?

Things are going well. I did contact Xavexgoem, and it sounds like he is willing to help if we want outside assistance. We simply have to request this from him. I'm guessing that he has done a lot of mediation, by simply looking at his talk page. If we all agree, we could have him play an advisory role about the best way to move forward. His experience would be a big positive for me.

Beyond that, next steps would involve noting possible unresolved issues that people want to make sure that we are all on the same page with. I don't think we should post a lot of things, just a few things each that you feel needs to be brought up. My list would include: i)removal of tags ii) controversy and wiki controversy(is there a difference?) iii) what citations can stay on the article.

If you folks have a few more then list them below.--scuro (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure those three sound like a good place to start. Hopefully we can get people to comment on them. Were should this take place? I do have a concern that you do not read Abd comments? He has provided me a lot of useful feedback. Doc James (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

We could call in Xavexgoem to give us advice. Is it best to continue here or in some other format? What could it look like, what would he advise that we do?

I'm glad that Abd has been helpful to you, I have nothing against that. I think we all have a choice of whom we want to respond to. I choose not to read or respond to Abd and hopefully we can leave it at that.--scuro (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So as we await for everyone to awake from their slumber lets keep it moving Jmh. When others join in we will seek consensus about next steps. Lets take a simple topic like reverts. As I understand it, if someone adds to the article, another contributor can revert with an explanation. It can be reverted by the original poster with a post in talk and that should be it for reverts. At this point I could see a small inline tag going in to alert readers that at least one editor sees a problem with a passage. As I see it no one should remove that tag. As much as possible the issue should be discussed in talk and if that is going no where, outside help should be gotten.

How is that for a start?--scuro (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure agree on the reverts. Not a big fan of inline tags. It makes it more difficult to edit. We have the tags at the top that apply to the whole article. If a statement is disagreed with the best way to proceed is to find a reference that supports an alternate point of view. Then to discuss things on talk. In a discussion references to alternate views are important. These can then be added to balance what is written if all references of are equal quality.--Doc James (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad that we are on the same page with reverts. Are we also in agreement that tags shouldn't be taken off by single users? That ideally the user who put it up there should take it off, or if things go downhill, a consensus of contributors in talk, could agree to take off a tag.

I'm not totally stuck on inline tags. In a perfect world they wouldn't be needed because changes needed would be done on the spot. Sometimes things get complicated. Take the UBC citation. It can take a long time before things get settled. The tag allows one side to "back down" on the article and not revert. It also alerts the reader that an issue is not resolved on the page. I don't think inline tags should stay up for a months. I do see that they can serve a purpose. In the past several editors have edit warred material off or on the page. When two or more contributors do this they can do so without breaking the 3R rule, yet do it without any communication in talk. I'm open to suggestions.--scuro (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

When one disagree with a source it is better to find a better one or contrast it with one of equal worth then just to tag things. If you question the reliability of a source but what it says is correct one can add a second source to it. If you find a better source that refutes it then you can replace the source. This I think is better then adding tags. Otherwise who will take the tag down in a few months?

As I have mentioned if you disagree with the TI then find a source that hold a different point of view and quote it. The thing is that the lack of long term evidence is not controversial. The reason for this lack of evidence maybe controversial. With respect to the us gov site we change it to past tense even though there is good evidence that it remains controversial among physicians in many areas of the world. Let see if anyone else wants to comment on this matter.--Doc James (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind if we move to controversy or citations next, lets just tie up a few loose ends. The problem with sources and passages on the article is that there sometimes are no easy answers or value judgments. One may disagree that one source should be replaced by another, that one source does not deserve it's place on the page...etc. If we all knew all the answers and every question had a clear right or wrong answer, we wouldn't be here. For instance if we look at the reason that there are no long term studies, the answer may fill up a paragraph or more. Some may see the passage as being of questionable quality, perhaps it comes on the page with no citation, or a "poor" citation. Next, there may be refuting evidence and counter refuting evidence that contributors want to insert into the passage. Certain passages can receive a lot of heavy editing and I've seen this sort of build up lead to edit warring. Don't you think an inline citation allows for a situation to be defused while things are discussed in talk? It's not that I want to pepper the article with inline tags. It's that I see the tag as a useful tool when there is disagreement. The tag would come off when the issue is resolved. That could be within the day or it may take some time, depending on how complex the issue is.

Disagreement, also reminds me of the related issue of consensus. If someone agrees with me, that does not mean I have a consensus. As I understand it, you have to ask everyone on the talk page to move to consensus, and an issue needs a proper vetting before a consensus can be called.--scuro (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:SILENCE? It's another definition of consensus: the kind of practical consensus that is found by boldly editing the article and seeing that no one objects. Determining consensus doesn't always require a drawn-out talk page conversation. There is no actual requirement that talk pages dramatically exceed the articles' length. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You have a "ringing" silence now on the article from most of the steady contributors of the page, I don't think anyone would mistake that for consensus. I do agree with bold/revert form of editing, but when that becomes dysfunctional TALK is the last place to go before formal and informal processes are needed. If we find agreement through communication, this process will be a major accomplishment, no matter what how long it takes.--scuro (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There has actually been a relatively good amount of editing taking place on the ADHD page recently. More then 10,000 words of text have been added. Someone who recently read the page even removed the POV tags from the top as I guess the considered the page more balance. In the past people would often comment on the talk page about how unbalanced the article was and we havn't received that in a while. Doc James (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is moving in the right direction. Those editors who you have stated in the past were POV pushers, have not been editing. It is when we all come together and agree, that it will be a truly good article.--scuro (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

consensus?

Are we on agreement with consensus? When things get back to normal and someone objects to an action, one can't call or assume consensus without first canvassing? WP:CON and WP:WHATISCONSENSUS --scuro (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure consensus is agreed upon.--Doc James (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Looks like we have most of the conduct issues cleared. It shows a letting go of ownership issues with agreement to wiki guidelines on conduct. This is all very positive. Still, ADHD has induced strong visceral reactions from many contributors. We need a plan B, a work around in case things heat up and go down hill. I'd prefer a solution that doesn't have us running to mommy and daddy with the first wiff of problems. I had suggested tags but perhaps someone else has a better solution? I'm hoping we can solve many of our own problems.

After that we simply have to clear the controversy/fringe/minority viewpoint hurdle?--scuro (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think getting outside opinions is very useful especial if things deteriorate again. I think getting more opinions and discussion of questions is better then adding tags. My opinion is added tags questioning sources is equivalent to weasel wood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONTROVERSY#Be_careful_with_weasel_words --Doc James (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Also this are not our own problems but involve many members of the wiki community. And if problems commence again we should seek help sooner then last time so that useful editing can start again sooner.--Doc James (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with you here, we let things go far too long before seeking help. I don't have any issue with that. I was just thinking we could come up with some work arounds before we always ask for help. For instance, may be an agreed upon mutual "time out", would help things simmmer down. There could be a number of work arounds.

I could actually see us working together and stopping newbies from changing consensus text no matter what the opinion, pro or con.--scuro (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

can we get past the tag issue?

This post is in response to Jmh's latest post on my talkpage.

I'm sure others are watching, watching our talk pages even. I'm guessing they are seeing progress, and if the two who were butting heads are working things out, why interfere? Either that or we have become to boring to hold their attention. ;) Personally, I think we will have bigger fish to fry then those two citations you listed.

Sure, I don't put down an inline tag if I can add something on the spot, and know the edit will stick on the page. I'd be using an inline tag when the editing process is not bearing fruit. But what happens when you revert and then I revert back again? It gets real complicated if other people start reverting and adding stuff to that same edit. I don't want to go down the path of double or triple reverts, all of that was frustrating in the past. If we can agree not to remove tags, it allows us an out when there is escalation. This can work two ways. Right now nothing is being added to the page but that will change once this is settled. What happens if several editors revert your addition? I'm asking for you to give some ground here because I think it will make the page a more livable space. If you worry about the potential of abuse, then say this is a good idea in principle. You may ask something of me in the future, and I just might say that what you suggest is a good idea in principle. Work arounds can be found to any problem, even before the problem happens. All is possible when there is good faith.--scuro (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I am happy with leaving the tags at the top of the page until all are happy with the article. I feel that they cover the whole page. I do not feel that adding inline tags questioning the reliability of individual sources adds anything. There have been a number of references that I, aswell as other, have considered far from ideal. I have replaced a number of them with better sources well leaving the content the some as the content was correct. This approach I think is preferred. If a source is obviously wrong then it should be easy to find very good quality evidence that refutes it. If something is felt to be unbalanced then balance should be added ie. good quality sources support more then one point of view. This approach requires more work but will produce a better page. Editing by the way is on going by a number of editors.Doc James (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps better to move on and call this a point of difference. I've been pushing the agenda, any specific topic you want to deal with?--scuro (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Let bring this back to the ADHD talk page and discuss weather ADHD is controversial or not. Vannin presented a very interesting paper a while back saying it is not controversial. I have provided a number that say it is. It would be get to get others opinions on this point.--Doc James (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ooops...missed this post. I guess we can troll on the article page for different viewpoints. It's not like I am denying there is controversy. I don't believe the scientific community believes there is as much controversy as say the Encyclopedia Britannica. I think we could find common ground if controversy is attributed, and "undue weight" and fringe issues are considered.

This might also be a guiding principle.

--scuro (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree that if scientist / physicians get there opinions published in a scientific / medical journals then this counts as evidence.--Doc James (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In principle I agree with you but there always will be exceptions, especially regarding the quality of the journal, how noteworthy the scientist is in that field, and how old the paper is. I'm not a big fan of giving much weight to Dr.'s simply because of their title.--scuro (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

Jmh has recently brought up the issue of controversy on the article talk page and my talk page. I assume this is the next issue he would like to discuss. Here are guidelines that I follow.

• Wikipedia:CONTROVERSY#Describe the controversy
• WP:FRINGE
• WP:SCICON--scuro (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Have read and they seem like useful guidelines. We may however need some help on interpretation. Doc James (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, this is where someone like Xavexgoem could come in handy, in that he is experienced, trusted, and knows his away around the block.--scuro (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

good final outcome

A lot of good progress has been made here. But, as I understand it, rfc's are closed if there is a lack of activity. I don't think that would be best outcome for us as a group, or for Jhm. I believe all is negotiable.--scuro (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I did talk to Xavexgoem about withdrawing the rfc. I have seen a lot of progress with regards to a change of attitude on conduct. Xavegoem replied to my question, "Yeah, I'd get rid of the conduct RfC. It's a weight of folks' shoulders, sometimes". I'd want to nail things down first, but I'm willing to go down this road. I'm not sure about the others. Thought I'd ask you first to see if there is interest. --scuro (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

As stated before we have made good progress. I have made attempts to engage Jhm in continued negotiation, and done so on several user talk pages. It seems that Jhm no longer wants to post on the rfc but instead wants to work things out on the ADHD talk page. From my perspective, that's not the appropriate forum to find common ground. This will most likely be my last post on the rfc unless Jhm wants to continue.--scuro (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a number of comments on the ADHD talk page and if you want to discuss content I still think that is the best place to do it. I am interested in further discussion if you wish. I have put forth a number of reasonable suggestions and am waiting for your response. Doc James (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussions about content for the ADHD article really should take place at the article's talk page. We do not want to exclude all other editors by having important discussions take place in an unexpected place. (Think about how you would feel if someone made major changes to the article, and then said, "We discussed all these changes at some other page, so we have a consensus for these changes. If you had wanted to be involved, then you should have magically known that we were discussing it there and joined us." You'd be furious if it happened to you, so don't do that to anyone else.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, it is not a content rfc. Content is an issue for Jhm. If content was a huge issue for me, I'd be editing the page now. If the process sucks, dealing with content is going to be a waste of time as it was on the dysfunctional adhd talk page. Once process has been mutually agreed upon, you could deal with specific content issues. I'd suggest that we can get on the same "content" page quicker here under the guidance of an administrator, but I'm not going to drag my heels on that one. But to just go to the ADHD talk page now could quickly destroy all the good faith that has been built up. On some aspects we are far apart still, even on basic things...like inline tags.--scuro (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We appear to have an agreed process. You will find a copy of it at WP:TALK. I suggest that you be willing to engage on the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. We have tried there and it failed many many times with numerous editors. It was dysfunctional. I don't think it is the right time to start a process while issues still have not been resolved. This is why wikipedia has processes such as med cabs and rfcs. But thanks. --scuro (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)