As of 2 June 2009 (Tuesday), the evidence presented by User:Scuro is exactly 3,345 words long. The guidelines explicitly state the maximum is 1,000 words and 100 diffs. Some kind of clarification on this issue is in order. Specifically, is it fair for some editors to adhere to the guidelines on presenting evidence and others not? Should the guidelines be relaxed for everyone or should Scuro be granted leniency? J Readings (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm not opposed to removing or shortening his evidence without further warning. I told him about 3 times that he needs to shorten his evidence, but he has not.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 23:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone actually counted the number of words and compared that to all the other parties evidence? I believe the passage is under a 1000 words, and even if it wasn't look at the tens of thousands of words generated through these sanction processes to date. How can you begin to call this unfair?--scuro (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jmh649 (381 words); Unionhawk (870 words); Hordaland (688 words); Literaturegeek (1,101 words) – it’s over by 101 words; Sifaka (995 words); Scuro (3,345 words) – it’s over by 2,345 words; Nja247 (492 words); Abd (588 words). J Readings (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shortening someone else's evidence without warning sounds like a bad idea, it is likely to make Scuro and anyone else over 1000 words angry. (My section clocks in at 1046 997 for comparison.) I would side with letting Scuro slide a little (up to 1500 words) since Scuro seems to be at the center of this arb. That said, Scuro's points will not be clear and others reviewing the case will NOT want to read his evidence if Scuro goes on for too long. I would enforce the 1000 word limit on everyone else (including me...) because it would force people to pick only their best arguments, stick to the point, and not repeat each other. Perhaps a bar like the following would push people in the right direction...

I don't know how picky the arbitrators are about length. They're the ones who should weigh in on this. Sifaka ^talk 02:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just put my "reply to Abd" through a word count, and it came to about 900 words. JR, are you taking about all of my responses and comments to date to get 3345 word total that you came up with? Don't you know that it takes a lot more words to refute an accusation then to make one? I'm providing evidence and challenging what is written. Where is your objection? Is it that I should have only a 1000 words to defend myself from everyone yet the combined total words that all of the others have to accuse me will probably quadruple my total?

Sifaka, I see no need to shorten your post. It is what it is, same goes for Literaturegeek. I've heard so many complaints that I only talk and never provide evidence. You would think that everyone would be happy that I am responding directly to accusations.--scuro (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone should be aware of what will likely happen. Within the next two weeks the ArbCom Clerk will start scanning the submitted evidence. Then, the Clerk will start removing large chunks of "evidence" to the talk-page deemed by the Clerk or the Committee (I was never sure on this particular point) to be factually irrelevant, irritating fluff, or pure wordiness (it happened in the Ayn Rand case a few months ago). Once its removed, that's the end of it. It cannot be resubmitted and it will not be considered by the Committee. You (and, to be fair, everyone else) truly risk undermining your respective cases by exceeding the explicit guideline limits. They are there for a reason. That was the point and it was meant to be a constructive one. If the Clerk indicates that you get special dispensation, that's fine of course. But you should be made aware of what will happen to you if you continue to let your evidence word count grow and grow and grow. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is important that we get a ruling. Is a "response" part of the evidence total? Is everyone allowed only 1000 total words for responses and evidence? Is it fair that the evidence and responses submitted, that basically all provide evidence against me will probably be at least quadruple my total 1000 words? What about those who link out to past responses some of which exceed 1000 words? Should those links be removed? What about the notion that it takes more words to respond to accusations then it does to make them?--scuro (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J Readings mentions above being uncertain as to whether a Clerk or an Arbitrator weeds out the Evidence page and moves stuff to Talk. It appears that Vassyana did (at least part of) that duty in the case about Ayn Rand's article:

• I will raise the broader issue of word counts on evidence pages with the other arbitrators. In this case, I individually chose to focus on standards of supporting evidence in judging what to remove from the main evidence page. The size limit is intended to keep evidence limited to a pool of information comprehensible to the arbitrators and other parties. Unless there is a concern in the light, let's leave the issue be. Focus on finalizing evidence and moving on to discussions at the workshop. Vassyana (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC

- Hordaland (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recall pasting my submission into microsoft word and doing a word count. I deleted titles, signatures and diffs as I figured that these would not be counted towards word count and it showed up as just under 1,000. If they (diffs, sigs and titles) are counted then I probably did exceed the word count but without them then I was within the word count limit. Anyway I have shortened my submission a little bit. Sorry for any mistake that I may have made, just explaining my side. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I chopped down a few sentences and got it below 1,000 even including words in title and signatures etc. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Anybody smell a sock? or is it just me?--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 17:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show proof (or even reasonable evidence) that I am a sock of someone or retract your baseless accusation. It is behavior like this that makes me consider submitting evidence in this case. Skinwalker (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptical Chymist and Skinwalker are not socks of scuro, they are established editors.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I would suggest that admins and contributers of this arbitration do is request that people submitting evidence demonstrate that they have had significant experience editing alongside scuro. Doing this should stop any immature attempt to sabotage the arbcom.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, "sabotage"? "Immature"? What is immature about my behavior? Be specific, please. It's clear to anyone who digs far enough that you are manipulating multiple articles on psychiatric drugs in order to minimize and denigrate mainstream psychiatry. This business of pillorying Scuro (whose behavior I will not defend) is a distraction and side issue. I will add my evidence in the coming days. Skinwalker (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, apparently I'm the only one? All right then. Whatever. Only a suspicion.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 18:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to skinwalker. Ok, I do not know you or barely know you and you are willing to invest all this energy into causing me a headache. I find this behaviour on the internet very bizarre. I don't see a lot of it in everyday real life, thus I think that it is abnormal and strange, I am sorry but that is what I believe. The little dealing that I have had with you on the paroxetine page was civil and in some cases supportive of your positions. See paroxetine talk. We never had any issues at all. You (as well as myself) initially thought a report on the admin noticeboard shortly after filingg of scuro report was a ligitimate report when it was a sockpuppet of Mwalla a banned user. Anyway you ran with that report as your wording of your response on the admin board used problems raised by the sockpuppet. I utterly refute the allegation that I am antipsychiatry or anything of that nature. In reality I am opposed to the aims and objectives of antipsychiatry groups. Some of my edits to the ADHD articles I do not even agree with but added them as they were verifiable and defended them because they were verifiable. Such as ADHD, I believe is a valid condition which has a verifiable set of impairments and medications are sometimes necessary.

The ONLY articles that I have contributed significantly to are

• Benzodiazepine related articles
• Long term effects of alcohol
• Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (created and wrote the whole article)
• ADHD and methylphenidate
• Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones

Actually ADHD and related articles I have only contributed moderately to over a short period of time and am finished editing them.

Why do you not denounce me for bringing balance to the long term effects of alcohol article? Am I anti-medicine as well because I edited an article on fluoroquinolones? Am I an raving anti-recreational alcohol use extremist because I balanced an article? The only dealings with editing alongside me skinwalker actually shows me supporting you. We never had any problems. I did not promote an antipsychiatry or anti-antidepressant use on the paroxetien page. Ironically I think antidepressants are an important therapeutic tool but they do have risks such as discontinuation problems.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is almost something supernatural about this Mwalla character and their socks as they really do seem to trigger most of the disputes that I end up in LOL, which is their intention.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are MY ONLY dealings with skinwalker.[1] and his response.[2]. I did not even cite the paper I suggested there but just thought the editors there would be interested as I have little interest in antidepressant drugs (no strong pro or anti bias) despite allegations by skinwalker. I just thought the editors on the article page might be interested after I stumbled across it. Skinwalker makes this comment,[3] Sceptical and then TVC make what i felt unfair comments. I felt sorry for skinwalker so I replied here defending him.[4] That is it. But then both I and skinwalker get deceived by a sockpuppet and then skinwalker which triggers a disagreement on the admin noticeboard and now I am being hounded. This is not normal behaviour. This is why I am fed up with wikipedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, so, am I the only one or not? LG, you OK there?--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 19:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are fine, most people on wiki are fine people and editors even those who differ from my POV. I just seem to see a lot more on here than real life of editors like Mwalla, Sceptical Chymist and scuro who lie about things people have said or of the content of refs and then start endless argumennts over their faked data and then you have to prove that you are right and they are being dishonest and then you have to go through these massive resolutions. That is what is getting me down about wikipedia. I just end up spending as much time dealing with drama as I do editing. I am definitely not doing any more extensive work to articles after the benzo article reaches featured article. Just gonna watch my watch list for vandalism etc.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a relative who takes a very low dose of an antipsychotic for dementia. He was previously on a very low dose of diazepam which stopped working due to tolerance after a couple of weeks and made him more confused. I advocated along with a doctor that he goes on a low dose of antipsychotic despite the mainstream opinion being currently against use of neuroleptics for dementia. The very low dose helps him, I guess I could be denounced as a pro-psychiatry person as well. I hate being labeled something that I am not. He may die a few months earlier but his quality of life is better thanks to psychiatric drugs and the drug companies. I also disagree with some of the wikipedia articles which condemn the use of these drugs entirely in dementia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Trying dispute resolution with Skinwalker on his talk page.User_talk:Skinwalker#Reaching_out.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor here who has had no dealings with scuro or ADHD articles (and actually doesn't even know me or edit alongside me) seems to be using this article as an attack on me after noticing a dispute with Sceptical Chymist and picking up on it. I have been accused by Skinwalker who previously I spoke to only twice on good terms on the paroxetine page a year or so ago that I am part of an antipsychiatry movement or agenda. I reject this as I am strongly opposed to the antipsychiatry movement and believe that they do much more harm than good in what they say about drugs. My beliefs are benzos cause tolerance and dependence and with long term use adverse mental health an physical health effects can occur. I believe the same about alcohol. I believe that the long term effects of ADHD drugs are under-researched and I believe the long term effects of fluoroquinolone antibiotics are under-recognised and under researched. These are the articles that I have mostly edited on wiki and thus are my editing "beliefs". I believe that the antipsychiatry movement does great harm to people and I want this false accusation to be resolved. Before users comment I would like to refer commenters to these sections to familiarise themselves with the background of thhis RfC.User_talk:Skinwalker#Reaching_out and this User_talk:Skinwalker#What_will_it_achieve and also the section above this one (on this project talk page). I invite skinwalker and editors here to comment. How also can I defend myself when I have reached my 1,000 word limit if I am going to be attacked as the ArbCom is now going to be an investigation into me as well now apparently.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As this is essentially a new or dual arbcom not related to ADHD or scuro if it goes ahead I would like an additional 1,000 words as this will be covering issues related to benzo pages. I personally believe that they should apply for a seperate arbcom rather than try to hijack this one in relation to a different dispute.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"An editor here" - if you are referring to Skinwalker, they have not submitted evidence yet. If they do, you may offer a rebuttal, provided you do not sink into opinions - provide basic facts that counter the evidence provided by others.

You do not need to initiate a RFC in order to obtain feedback. If you have question about Arbitration process/procedure/norms, please ask a WP:CLERK or ask an individual arbitrator. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can easily defend myself I feel. I have brought lots of articles to start class and stub class to B class and two to good article status. I will just prove I am a constructive contributer as well as defend myself against any specific allegations. Thanks for your comments. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to post a reply to one of the comments Scuro made in the reply to me, but before I posted it, I had second thoughts about the appropriateness of the response. In short, the reply would have addressed what I perceive to be Scuro's character as an editor. In my draft, I feel I was tactful: I emphasized that this was my impression and avoided being provocative in tone. However, I am unsure whether a response that addresses something like perceptions of another editor's character are appropriate at all. Some guidance on this issue would be appreciated. Sifaka ^talk 02:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to portray Scuro's character properly. One has to have edited with him to understand how frustrating it is. His continuous incivility makes editing these pages difficult.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather difficult sometimes to criticise someone without it coming across as untactful or uncivil. I guess you could perhaps add in words such as "I mean no disrespect, but think,,," so the reader is aware that you are just making an observation and are not being uncivil. Difficult to advise as I don't know what you are considering saying.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "I mean no disrespect, but ____ is a drooling idiot" will still be considered disrespectful. I think in these cases, we need to do what we can to present information as politely as possible, and to avoid including unnecessary characterizations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]