User talk:Scuro

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Please click here to leave me a new message.


Welcome to my Talk Page. Please use the box above, or manually enter new messages at the end of my page. Please sign your name on my talk page using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

cite format

Since you had some questions regarding how to cite sources properly here is a list of the various cite templates. It's best to fill out as much information as possible, although you probably won't get all the information. In that case leave the parameter blank. You may want to consider updating refs you have added with additional information. Sifaka talk 15:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

refTools

Regarding this query last week: For future reference and ease of referencing consider enabling refTools. To do so, select my preferences at the top right corner (it's between my talk and my watchlist). Once preferences is loaded, select gadgets and then check the refTools box and hit save at the bottom of the page. Then a new buttom -- like this will appear in your editing tool bar. It makes adding references of all sorts much easier. Nja247 12:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Sifaka and Nja. Nja, would you be my reference and citation mentor?--scuro (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem on the refTools, as for your other request: I don't think that would be the best situation for either of us considering past tensions. I'd be willing to help find suitable candidates though if you're having trouble finding someone, and if you don't want to take a chance with whomever Arb places with you. Nja247 14:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I installed it, but I don't see the icon thingy. I'll look at it more closely this week. You know, finding or understanding what a proper reference is, has never been a problem...simply they were not respected in the past and that is why I avoided them. Citing them properly just requires learning and the curve doesn't look that steep. This is why I picked you and you seem to know what you are doing. There is not much to this except a little teaching and I thought it might be a good bridge for us and allow us to work together for the first time,...but I understand. It doesn't matter who is chosen as long as they know what they are doing.--scuro (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you need to bypass browser cache for new tools to show. Type 'bypass cache' + the name of your browser (e.g. firefox) in google if you're unfamiliar with bypassing the cache. That should sort it if you chose refTools in your preferences and hit save. Nja247 14:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see a bookmark icon now. An open book with a red ribon. When I press it, < ref > add reference < / ref > appears...simply allowing me to do what I have done before. If I don't press shift reload page the icon disappears.--scuro (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No you should see the cite icon as I posted above. Did you turn it on in 'my preferences', or did you do it manually by pasting the code into your monobook.js file? Nja247 18:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a mac, tried three different applications, including firefox and safari. The box is checked but no icon when I go to edit.--scuro (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Poll

Hi, you were involved in the discussion at Talk:Ron Paul. A straw poll is currently being conducted to discern concensus.Chhe (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, scuro. I've put forward another proposal in an attempt to resolve the content dispute at Ron Paul. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks! Nick Graves (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You have made multiple personal attacks, accusing members of all sorts of things, culminating in a personal attack on Doc James and myself.[1] You know fine rightly that I used 95% plus of sources to high quality secondary sources, meta-analysis and review articles. You are intentionally trying to belittle and smear opposing editor's characters, using malicious false accusations. You have also been baiting people with previous edits on talk pages in the past couple of days. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested administrator Xeno's help with regards to your threats. [2] --scuro (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LG, to me that isn't really a personal attack, rather Scuro's opinion. I wish you lot could learn to edit in a way that was productive to Wikipedia without getting too touchy over things said. Nja247 06:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is because you do not edit medical and pharmacology articles Nja, which is why you are viewing things differently. He is saying harmful things to editors who he opposes, such as Doc james and I and perhaps others which can seriously damage our reputations in the editing environment and projects we edit in. He also knows from arbcom talk page as well as on ADHD article talk pages that I oppose antipsychiatry groups, that I regard them as doing much more harm than good, extremist and not rational in a lot of what they say. He accused me of those views knowing I feel that I would not take too kindly to it. If I spent my time lets say editing football articles or or geography articles then it wouldn't matter to me much. Many people have the ADHD article on their watch list. What happens the next time drama crops up, someone seizes on lies told by scuro as "evidence" to use against me? Scuro needs a mentor, I feel. Scuro by the way where in arbcom did it say mentor was "only to help you with citations"?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to edit together with those holding minority opinion, NJA. They have avoided EVERY attempt at mediation or true consensus building. But that's what happens when editors are allowed to bring cases to arb com having never attempted these normal methods of seeking agreement. Why bother seeking a meeting of the minds when you don't have to do so. Worse yet, they were allowed to take very personal pot shots at me during arbitration, and continue to personalize the talk pages, and nothing is done. As for LG, I'd respond to her groundless accusations if she wants mediation.--scuro (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To scuro: Mediation has been attempted and failed, multiple times, up to, and including arbitration. Let's face it, you're basically calling your disagreement "no consensus" as to stall any discussion that you oppose, then demand mediation and claim it has never been attempted. I have stated before, social construct theory is wrong, however, a recent search at Google Scholar bring up an insubstantial amount of relevant sources. Either way, a good amount of normal people still believe ADHD is fake.
To LG: This probably wasn't the most appropriate of warnings. A level 2 warning might have been more appropriate, but in this case I would not have used a templated warning to begin with, even with a comment.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 17:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Union. It was because of the background to this case, that this is an ongoing repetaive issue with a long history and as you know arbcom getting involved that I chose a level4 warning. Perhaps a level2 warning would have been better.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me the link of any attempted mediation that any of you initiated. It doesn't exist. It's even more of a joke that you state it was tried at arbitration. I was rebuffed at every turn there. NJA would know what happened there, and I hope his eyes have been opened here. It is ironic that you folks come on to my talk page to complain about the great efforts you have made. How about simply making an attempt now for the first time? Consensus can be sought at anytime. Either that or simply respond to the many open concerns in the archived talk pages. I hope that NJA and other administrators see who is still making an effort, and which people avoid a meeting of minds at every turn.--scuro (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is achieved via using refs. All I get is meta-analysis and systematic reviews are fringe, minority and people wanting them cited are being scientologists and antipsychiatrists. Original research cannot be cited, there is no consensus on this unless original research policy is deleted. Please provide refs for your position and then we can discuss things. As stated countless times before you are more than welcome to become a constructive wikipedian and contribute to the enclyclopedia using refs.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply tell me that you want to work things out. Where there is a will there is a way, others in Wikipedia will help us.--scuro (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am happy to work things out.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right now this is all at arb com. In the future I'd be very pleased if we talked before sanctions are sought.--scuro (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Scuro. You have new messages at Xeno's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You can put your responce Abce2|This isnot a test 22:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [[3]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that I would like to do more then focus strictly on content. Will you help me in this regard? I've been swept into a giant pool of drama by pointing out personalized attacks made against me. It's been incredibly frustrating that none of the regular contributors is willing to respond to numerous points of undue weight and bias that I made on the ADHD pages over a month ago. See archives #12-16 in the talk pages. Issues have been tagged so they are easy to spot. Sure could use some guidance here, especially since these editors have always avoid any form of reconciliation or mediation.--scuro (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen others advise for you to let it go. I would do the same. It hurts to do this but someone has to be the bigger person. I would definitely advise moderating your own tone though, I got sucked into a war with someone once and I blew my stack. In the end that user got the last satisfaction because I was the one blocked. We have to remember while lobbying for whatever it is we are lobbying for (assuming it's not disruptive lobbying) that we have to remain above the conflicts. Try letting the past go. If you have further questions or comments tell them you no longer wish to discuss it. This doesn't mean you can go willy nilly against policy but it does give you recourse to complain of further "offenses". Like I say though if you are crying out your own actions will be heavily scrutinized as well. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. It is so very hard to not respond to numerous false accusations and not get sucked in....kind of like what Obama is facing now. I am reconsidering how I deal with such situations.--scuro (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Mediation Request

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning ADHD has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/ADHD and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review


Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/ADHD.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Your personal connection

Hello scuro, I would like to know what your personal connection to user hyperion is?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry hyperion has given me an explaination which I have accepted. I have as you can see struck out my above comments.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

There is one issue which needs addressing urgently and sadly your latest post to the collaboration project has meant that this action has needed to be taken.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_ADHD--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of a NEW request to amend ArbCom case

A new request for amendment of the ADHD remedies has just been filed. This one asks for additions to Remedy 3) Scuro placed under mentorship. This notification is being added to the talk pages of scuro, Literaturegeek, Jmh649, Unionhawk and WhatamIdoing. - Hordaland (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What can be done

What if everything I have said was in good faith? I can offer to sign up if that is what stops you from committing to anything. What can you agree to? How do you picture us making a major step forward to collaborative editing?

In response to your above comments copied from arbcom.

If you want to sign up to Wiki Med, that would be a welcome step, it is your choice, I am not going to push the issue anymore.

As far as compromising on things, you and hyperion are strongly opposed to references which cover "ADHD is not a disorder" etc. Maybe we can reduce the weight of such view points in the ADHD controversies article. I see no justification for the undue weight given to scientology using a synthesis of newspaper articles which really should not be used in medical articles as sources, per WP:MEDRS. I am not saying delete it but lets try and give less weight and prominance to both aspects that we do not like in the ADHD controversies article.

The main ADHD article I don't think there are any major undue weight issues and that is why I wanted Wiki Med collaboration project to become involved and why blocking Wiki Med resulted in our relationship deteriorating recently and lead to tension between us as you know. I agree not to lose my cool with you.

How does this sound as an offer? A bit matter of fact but better cutting straight to the point. I would rather be your friend than your enemy. You must be aware by now that arbcom's patience for this drama is running out and firm action will be taken against you and perhaps also me as well. They might even put the article on probation with special rules which would effect every single editor.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets focus on what we can agree on rather than disagree on first of all. That would be a good start. What do you think? What can we agree on or compromise on?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation has been moved to Literaturegeeks talk page.--scuro (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW

Hi Scuro,

About this comment, I just wanted to say that mediators don't normally "decide" anything or tell participants what they should do outside of the mediation process itself. They try to limit their activities to asking (hopefully insightful) questions and advocating for clear, direct, and civil communication, while letting the participants exercise as much independence and free-will self-determination as possible.

Consequently, if you're looking at mediation as a way of getting binding decisions or 'rulings' from an impartial person, or having someone tell (any of the editors) what to do, then you're probably going to be disappointed by mediation. I still think that your offer is a good way of showing your willingness to find good solutions, for which I think you should receive appropriate credit, even if your specific proposal might not happen in exactly the way you envisioned it.

Good luck (to you, and to all involved editors), WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC) (who is not watching this page)[reply]

Mentorship...

ArbCom contacted me today about you needing a mentor (or whatever; I don't like the word "mentor"). You still open for one? Xavexgoem (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take you as a mentor anytime. I while ago I went back and looked at our med cab. I was a bit fresh at that time to fully understand. Your words stuck with me.--scuro (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool :-) I'm new at mentoring, so I have no clue about how to go about this. Most people use a subpage (User:Scuro/Mentorship?). Also: are you on IRC? Xavexgoem (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been on IRC for years. E-mail me and we can get some of the informal stuff out of the way. Perhaps I can set up IRC again if you like that. I'm not sure exactly how this is to work either. The remedy is clear on what is supposed to happen. It doesn't say how it is to happen.--scuro (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank-you Xavexgoem for offering to mentor Scuro, and thank-you Scuro for going ahead with this. I've made a formal note at the arbitration request of this development, and will be moving to close the request tomorrow, once I've checked what else needs addressing there (there were a few things other than the mentorship that the Arbitration Committee were asked to amend or act on). I'm leaving a note here to point out what should be done here as far as the arbitration mentorship remedy goes. The mentorship remedy passed in July stated: "The terms of the mentorship must cover guidance on Wikipedia's sourcing and citation guidelines, but otherwise Scuro and the mentor are free to decide on the terms. Once an agreement on the terms is reached, Scuro or the mentor shall advise the Committee of the terms by email." The bit about contacting us by e-mail is not completely rigid - I suggest setting something up on the subpage Xavexgoem has suggested (the wording of the remedy could be copied over, for a start), and then making a note on the case page to update the note that will be placed there about this mentorship, and dropping us an e-mail to make sure we have seen the mentorship terms. I suggest, once the mentorship terms have been set up, that the COTW proposal here is considered as a starting point. If there are problems or questions (for example, about the exact dates of what should be a minimum of a 1-year mentorship), please let us know, but hopefully this mentorship can get going and run without too much need for ArbCom involvement. Carcharoth (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've written the terms on the mentorship page. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:A/R/ADHD

Please see this motion. MBisanz talk 19:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello scuro, I have made a sincere effort to find an alternative to a topic ban. I believe that we have a one and final chance. It does not involve us being let off the hook, it means we have a more focused enforcement placed upon us. The new proposal is based on behavioural violation enforcement, likely to entail anything which significantly disrupts the editing environment/encyclopedia, including arguing, personalising. The discussion is ongoing here,User_talk:Vassyana#A_punishment_for_befitting_of_the_crime. I will freely admit that my major problem is losing my cool and personalising things when under stress. I strongly recommend we both do not turn this final opportunity into a heated back and forth debate or he said/she said. I suggest we both acknowledge our faults and accept whatever the arbcom recommend. It is for both of our good.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will do anything to support you but I won't join in. If I get the topic ban it will be a lot easier for you anyways. If I don't we could work something out like sharing the page on opposite months. What they have done is wrong. They have made several assumptions which are wrong. They can ban me but I can live with that. Like you I have a code by which I live. When things are down right wrong, I'd rather take the punishment then state things which are not true to receive a lesser punishment.--scuro (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya scuro, thank you very much for your support. I think taking it turns for one month could cause more problems than it would solve, besides we will be on a topic ban no matter what. The only question is whether it is voluntary combined with additional sanctions regarding disruption and civility or involuntary on its own. I think that it is best that you acknowledge wrong doing, even if you may protest certain allegations and then accept a ruling from the arbcom. You can acknowledge at least what you feel you did wrong. The first step to resolving a problem is admiting to the problem and the next step is addressing that problem.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey LG :-),

I think before you can resolve a problem you need to understand the problem. What I need to see is that they have a basic understanding of my concerns and the situation since arbitration. They think I'm emotional and have serious page ownership issues with the ADHD article. I can think of no better indicator that this is not true, then my acceptance that the probable outcome will likely be a year long topic ban. So be it. Sometimes change can only happen when something so obviously wrong is allowed to occur.--scuro (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it started off as page ownership and content dispute long before I edited the articles but it morphed into disruptive behavioural issues particularly entrenched circular personalised arguments. There were a lot of editors with varying viewpoints on ADHD who submitted diffs of your behaviour, so I really don't understand why you won't acknowledge your role in all of this. I wonder (and mean no disrespect asking this) if this failure to acknowledge any wrong doing on your part is a symptom of this hostile battleground that has arisen? I still feel if there is to be resolution where editors can get along with each other that problematic issues need to be acknowledged. Denying everything is not doing anyone least of all yourself any favours, i.e. your ongoing dispute with whatamIdoing and will just get people's backs up even more.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scuro, could you please let me know explicitly whether you would be adverse to general probation in place of a topic ban? Literaturegeek obviously expressed a preference for a probation over a topic ban and I'm willing to accomodate that preference. I know that you would obviously prefer no sanction, but I am trying to offer at least some choice between the options. From my perspective as an arbitrator, either option would suit the situation just as well and if you have a preference I am willing to take it into account. Please let me know as soon as possible. Vassyana (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since arbitrators have: a)answered no question, b)provided nothing in the form of specific differentials of improper conduct that wasn't shown to be completely bogus, c) or offered anything that one would normally take for evidence on wikipedia,... the choice you offer means nothing to me. Do what you have to do. My only request is that further evidence, or further justification for a topic ban, not be added by any administrator from now until the case is closed.--scuro (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee Amendment

Your attention is brought to the following remedy amendment: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Scuro_restricted, which was amended on 9 November 2009. The text of the amendment motion is as follows:

  • 2) Scuro (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all pages, topics, and discussions related to attention-deficit hyperactivity, broadly defined, for twelve months.
Passed by amendment motion 6 to 1, 01:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested here is the background. The two amendment requests that arbitration never never ruled upon.request request Instead they filed a topic ban proposal. Here is the evidence and justification for doing so.ban proposal.--scuro (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

help needed to fight unfair topic ban

As suggested by Carcharoth[4]: "You would file an appeal at the requests for amendment page. You should try to make your presentation clear and to the point, stating clearly why you are filing it, and what has changed, or what new evidence you are presenting. If you are objecting to what was raised previously, you will need to be very clear on why you think the previous decision was wrong. In many cases it is better to demonstrate an ability to edit productively for 3-6 months in another topic area (not related to the previous topic area), and then ask for the restrictions to be relaxed. If you still want to file an appeal, you may want to find someone willing to help you write up the appeal".

Reasons I believe the topic ban is unjust;

Facts

  • the clarification request clearly demonstrated that abuse had occurred.[5]
  • administrators were to watch for further instances.
  • harassment/ false accusations continued.
  • harassment/ false accusations were part of two amendment topic ban requests against me, which the very same administrators were overseeing.[6][7]
  • harassment/ false accusations were part of the administrative topic ban proposals.[8] The same administrators were overseeing this sanction process also.
  • In a half year there are hundreds of examples of false accusations/harassment through at least half a dozen sanction processes. I have made numerous administrators aware of this and no direct warning has ever been given.
  • even though numerous allegations were made against me during two arbitration amendment requests, no action was deemed necessary.
  • an administrator agreed to hear my amendment request as part of the two amendment requests.
  • this administrator was asked repeatedly to confirm that I would be allowed to file the request. No response was given and the amendment proposals were closed without my proposals being heard. It had been stated clearly that my proposals were to deal with harassment/ false accusations.
  • administrators who were part of the amendment request then filed a topic ban proposal. They offered no specific evidence and answered no question, even though they were repeatedly asked to do so.
  • they never formally communicated with the accused during the procedure.
  • The only evidence offered was by an uninvolved administrator who offered one diff which was shown to be totally bogus.
  • Reasoning was given for the topic ban but again the logic behind the conclusions never had to stand up to any scrutiny.
  • a year long topic ban was given to myself. The other party received no sanction, no warning, no advisement.


Questions

1)By pointing out harassing behaviour it has been assumed that there is, "a failure of either to work together or disengage”, and that "breathing room" was needed. Why must one have breathing room when one is being harassed? Why has no administrator ever intervened in any way against many false, blatant, and spiteful comments against me?

2)How can one disengage from harassment, especially when part of the harassment is the filing of sanction processes that include a number of bogus accusations?

3)If administrators discounted numerous allegations of wrongdoing during the two amendment requests, why did administrators make further accusations and propose a new topic ban?


Principles of care and justice

1)In a community, those in charge have a duty of care. No one should have to endure months of ongoing abuse.

2)A basic principle of any form of justice is that those making claims can be challenged, and that they must respond.

3)A basic principle of any form of justice is the separation of duties. One party can not start a process, make accusations, not communicate with the accused, and then vote for sanctions.

The sanction process is a "blunt instrument" but it shouldn't be an indifferent instrument and unfairly punitive instrument. For these reasons, I view the year long topic ban as unjust. If you believe that the ban was unjust, I would appreciate your help.--scuro (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments, meant to be helpful:
  1. You'd do well to use the word arbitrator when that is what you mean, and only use the word administrator when that is what you mean.
  2. On 20 September 2009 you asked: I may like to add my own amendment request(s), could I simply add them to the other two requests? Carcharoth answered the same day: Yes, you may. You may need to explain why you felt that you needed permission from anyone else, after getting such a clear answer, as a request from you then may have made your present intention to appeal unnecessary.
  3. Similarly, Vassyana asked above if you'd be interested in alternative sanctions. A positive answer from you then might have made your present intention to appeal unnecessary.
Hordaland (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Hey scuro, even though we find it difficult to get along, I wanted to sincerely wish you and your family a Happy New Year.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for your kind sentiments, peace to you and your family.--scuro (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you scuro for your kind comments. Hopefully in 2010 if we ever edit on the same articles again we can do so peacefully and productively. The battles and hostility can get depressing and is counter-productive. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and problems with your comment

Greetings scuro. With regards to this comment which I presume I was one of those editors which you refer to; I was not too happy to read that comment as I think it was a distortion of what happened but to be fair at least you had the courtesy not to name editors. What drew me to the ADHD articles was actually a WP:FRINGE theory which attributed all controversy to scientology using scientology magazines and a newspaper article. It was you who added this fringe theory and defended it without any peer reviewed support. A fringe theory is still a fringe theory even if it is viewed by the promotor as defending the mainstream position. I think with respect that it is hypocritical to accuse other editors of being fringe POV pushers when you yourself promote fringe theories. I do not believe I pushed any fringe theories on ADHD articles, I was careful to use only review and meta-analysis peer reviewed sources for my edits on the ADHD articles. I also think that it is wrong to say we control the ADHD articles, first of all I left the articles voluntarily and have not edited for over 6 months now and also the other editors have left in your fringe theory cited to a newspaper on the adhd controversies article; they could have easily deleted it with you being topic banned but did not. Perhaps you would like to cease making these unpleasant and false allegations against your fellow wikipedians, it does you no favours.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be constantly harassed for about a year is difficult to handle. To have those in charge do absolutely nothing about it is even tougher to handle. To be topic banned based on zero credible evidence with no valid argument was a major wrong. Now half a year later I offer advice to a troubled contributor and I use this experience to educate a fellow contributor that strongly insisting that issues be dealt with can lead to very bad outcomes no matter who is right. You decide after all this time, where no links were offered and no names were mentioned, to personalize things instantly. Is it not absurd to bring content issues up while I am topic banned? All the major editors of that article were invited numerous times to seek third party processes but in the end all backed out. It was shameful what was done and even more shameful how it was done.
For a guy who insisted that I stop posting on their talk page as I attempted to work things out with you, I gotta say you have some nerve here.--scuro (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Is it not absurd to bring content issues up while I am topic banned?"
Yes it was absurd scuro, you bringing up content issues with personalised character assasinating accusations regarding other editors, which was why I messaged you on this issue. I have a nerve? Hmmm. Scuro if you could see your attitude, you seem to think you can criticise and character assasinate and then if someone defends themselves and tries to communicate with you on this issue, you are being harassed and the person has some nerve.
You and I are well known on admin noticeboard, so "not using people's names" makes little difference; for many people reading your comments, they know which editors you are character assasinating. Also it takes little time to click on your talk page and figure out which editors you are talking about for people interested. I think you know this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to spell it out, the ArbCom is over, get over it, and please stop character assasinating editors by name or cryptically. Is that too much to ask?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what did I say about your character? Nothing. The several assumptions here are bad faith in nature. I see absolutely no positive purpose in continuing this discussion or having any future discussions with you. I asked you in my last edit summary to please not post on my talk page. This is my second request to you, do not post on my talk page again.--scuro (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"I do not see why Wikipedia should not be just as cruel as nature".--scuro (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Fred Baughman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fred Baughman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Baughman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 15:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm Mvcg66b3r. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to KATV seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Scuro"