| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Electroconvulsive therapy |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Mediator(s) | Jacroe |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Electroconvulsive therapy]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Electroconvulsive therapy]]
Request Information
Who are the involved parties?
Staug73 v Loodog and Scuro
What's going on?
I (Staug73) think Loodog and Scuro are trying to sabotage this article, I think that the NPOV tag is unwarranted (they won't say which statements they think are not neutral) and their demands for more footnotes a bit unreasonable (I don't mind putting in a few more, but I think the article is already well-referenced). Also they are not being polite.
What would you like to change about that?
I would like them to remain civil and reasonable and not keep putting on a NPOV tag. If they have any suggestions about improving the article then I would be happy to hear them, but they don't seem to know much about the subject or be interested in writing something.
Staug73 statement
Hi, could I first of all remind Scuro that Wiki is an encyclopedia, it is not intended to be a resource for people "at the point of crisis". Wiki is definitely not about giving people medical advice. That said, of course, people in crisis may be reading Wiki and yes, that is something I bear in mind. But an encyclopedia article about a medical treatment may contain information about the history of a treatment that you wouldn't expect to find in a patient information leaflet. I am however, quite amenable to moving some things around. Re the POV accusations - I have put in a RfC but have only had one response - from Scuro! I did have one response (from someone not involved with the article) on my talk page. It was wholly positive. I will have another go at a RfC request - but could we please leave the response for comment section on the discussion page blank for responses from people who respond to the request? I have tried to stick to facts and, where opinions differ, to say who says what. Obviously this is difficult when you are dealing with a very controversial topic. In the meantime, could I ask Scuro to read the wiki guidelines on POV? Staug73 15:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Mediator response
Hey, I'm Jacroe. I'll be the mediator for this case. Have both parties agreed to the terms on the WP:MEDCAB site? Jac roe 22:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jacroe. Yes, I have read the medcab page and agree to terms. Am I meant to reply here or on your talk page? Staug73 15:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just reply here. If you would tell a statement about what's happened above. Jac roe 18:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
From my vantage point the article is clearly biased and was blatantly so before requests for citations and edits were made. I have informally stated several times in the discussion area why I believe this article to be biased. Recently I have also posted clear examples of very flawed sections and further reasons why I find the article biased. At this point I have committed myself to editing the whole article because of the bias of the information presented. Why? because unsuspecting readers who may be, or have loved ones at a point of crisis, may be looking at Wikipedia for answers. They won't find a balanced article here. One solution is to allow me to continue. Granted this will be a long process, especially if this is mainly done in discussion. I am willing but while this process goes on a NPOV tag should stay on the article as this is being done. If someone wants to make a formal process out of this, so be it.
At first glance, my knowledge of this subject doesn't seem to be inferior to Staug73 and that's not really the issue here. It is an issue of an article that is clearly biased. I'm also quite willing to discuss this matter as my multiple posts in discussion clearly illustrates. As for the issue of the NPOV tag, I've given up there after several attempts to repost the tag. It was simply taken down every time I posted it. I still find the article biased and presently it should have an NPOV tag on it to alert readers. -- scuro 21:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to create an article based on contempory usage with sources for strong claims about ECT. The article blatantly skews modern views on ECT by overemphasizing historical perspective. My edits have primarily consisted of adding pov, fact, and or tags, in addition to things like removing John Breeding's viewpoints, which were given an entire section and called "Psychological Effects", as if it were some common concensus. I would request of Staug73 to 1) assume good faith and 2) refrain from personal attacks. As for the NPOV tag, it stays so long as there is disagreement. To do otherwise would be a misrepresentation of collective editors' opinions of the article, providing false assurance to readers. I agree with Scuro that the article should be appropriately balanced for whatever use the article receives and it it isn't, should definitely have a disclaimer.-- Loodog 01:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of the outcome of this process, we need to live in the same "space". I find it highly challenging to work on the article with editors who remove IPOV tags and delete major subsections all without a peep in discussion. The discussion page is not being used the way it is meant to be used. We use discussion pages to communicate and reach collaborative decisions, especially when there is widespread disagreement...hence the word, "consensus". I respectfully ask Staug73, to undo his recent major edits and follow this process as laid out in Wiki guidelines. Talk and reach consensus before you do. That is a process I am willing to follow to the letter if I know that other editors will also respect this process.-- scuro 20:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
My edits are deleted my ipov tags are deleted and no recent communication in discussion. I can not function as an editor. HELP!! I am asking for intervention now. Please respond mediator.-- scuro 16:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I could ask an administrator for full protection with a NPOV tag on the article for one week if Loodog and Staug73 agree to this. Then we would have a week to discuss this. It would do no harm. How about it?
Jac
roe 21:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Accepted.-- Loodog 02:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"Electroconvulsive therapy; 17:29(+14)Staug73 (Talk | contribs) (→The History of ECT - Hands off - this is MY section (for the history taken out of rest of article))" Each day gets worse with further sections removed. I don't know how to say this nicely....Jacroe, you have my blessings to attempt anything as long as in the end we don't make exceptions to placate other members.-- scuro 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've made a request for an administrator full protect for one or two weeks. We will resume once this is accepted (cross-fingers) or declined. Jac roe 17:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Protection was granted and that makes me feel a lot more positive about this process. Again, I'll make the offer to follow wiki guidelines about editing "to the letter" if others follow suite. If all agreed to this most of the frustration and problems would disappear.-- scuro 19:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. That gives everyone a breather. Staug73 14:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I still see this conflict as a problem of not following Wikipedia procedure, lack of communication, and high levels of frustration ...rather then of sabotage. Granted our views on this page are polar as they most likely are on even methods of procedure but that doesn't mean we can't coexist on the same page. These difficulties can be overcome with good faith and some work. If others agree then I suggest we move forward towards an informal process.
If on the other hand this dispute is still seen as a case of willful sabotage then this impression should be reconfirmed and this process should move towards a formal hearing. I am ready when others are ready.-- scuro 16:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think the danger to this article is that is will be sabotaged by a combination of strong POV and lack of knowledge of the subject/writing skills. I will use Scuro's last edit as an example:
- Prior to the edit there was, in the section of Research into structural brain damage a brief, NPOV and accurate discussion of three reviews of the literature, in chronological order: 1982, 1984, 1994 (apologies - the date for the review by Devanand et al should be 1994, not 1991). Scuro decided this was POV and that the 1994 study should be mentioned first, which puts them in the rather illogical order 1994, 1982, 1984 (but I am not going to argue about it!)
- The problem is that, in moving the 1994 review, Scuro has managed to introduce five errors (not counting spelling mistakes)
- 1. Devanand had 4 co-authors - it is not "he" and "his". Also - a minor point- it would be nice to say who he is, for example, "Psychiatrist...".
- 2. Why has one review become "several recent reviews"? If there are others, why haven't they appeared in the footnote? And did they "conduct" different reviews? Or just publish the same one in different places? Another minor point - "1994" is probably better than "recent".
- 3."possible" should be "structural" (that is what the review is about)
- 4. Major point: I don't think that quote is actually in the review cited (the one in the footnote). So where does it come from?
- 5. "He concluded that ECT induced cognitive deficits are transient." The other half of that sentence (the bit after "although") needs to be included, otherwise it changes the meaning of what the authors said.
- 6 Not exactly an error, but introduces repetition: if a quote is included about the authors' conclusion you can take out "concluded that no evidence of structural brain damage as a result of ECT has been found." You don't need both.
Staug73 14:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me if my last post wasn't polished but that lack of refinement has been caused by recent conditioning on the ECT article. You see several of my most recent edits have been deleted. Therefore, I wasn't going to invest a lot of time into this procedure. I first wanted to see if ANY of my contribution would "stick" to the page. When your work isn't respected you tend not to invest a lot of yourself into something.
Criticisms #1-#6 should be posted on the discussion page as should all criticisms. In fact I have continually invited editors to post in discussion instead of on the edit message itself or not at all...so that real communication can begin. Could Staug73 be totally correct in his 6 point critique? I don't know because I'll respond to these points when I see them posted in discussion. Are there errors in my post that may need to be fixed? Sure...if this is pointed out to me with the opportunity of rebuttal, I would personally amend posts or give any corrections my blessings.
My "strong POV" generally is nothing more then quotes and connecting information in a coherent way. There is very little or no opinion in any of my edits. All of this information can be referenced, and all of it is from acceptable sources of information. Contrast that to editors who posted and reposted clearly POV material that shouldn't be on the article such as the musings of John Breeding.
But all of this is not the point, is it? We all have bias and others who have polar points of view on other articles can live together on the same page. Wikipedia has a standard which when it is followed eliminates a great deal of bias. Some also think I may not be knowledgeable about this topic but again, Wikipedia has a process and clear standards about what should go on a page and how to eliminate factual errors.
So in my mind, the real question still is do some editors see other editors as working in bad faith to willfully sabotage the article? Does the complainant still believe this?-- scuro 17:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Scuro, are you over 21? Staug73 17:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I passed that milestone a long time ago....-- scuro 22:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
To date we have had no movement on Staug73's part and we have only seen further complaints. He hasn't even commented on whether he still believes his original complaint of "sabotage" still holds and if we are to resolve these issues there is work to do. All parties have something to gain by working together.-- scuro 00:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Mediator, are we meant to be doing something? If so what? Yes, I do believe that this article is at risk of sabotage by people who have come here with an agenda from the Psychiatry/anti-psychiatry debate and don't know enough about ECT to make useful judgements about or contributions to this article. Witness the bit I posted above. Perhaps I have been too accommodating up to now. Staug73 15:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Staug73, Wikipedia is, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The banner doesn't say, "the free encyclopedia that one can only edit if one personally believes that one is free of bias and highly knowledgeable about a subject".
- If you believe that you have been "too accommodating" till now for those with an "agenda", make a formal complaint. At that point I will not only show that we didn't sabotage the article or do anything else that you have complained about, but rather that all of your complaints are true of your own behaviour. If that is course of action I will ask the mediator to consider all of this before they make judgement and choose a course of action.
- If on the other hand you first want to attempt to resolve this informally, I am open to work with those who want a solution and are have good faith to resolve this problem. To solve this problem I believe the first step would be to look at communication and following Wikipedia guidelines in this regard. Again, I have made that point from the time that I first edited this page.
- I believe that all communication about a dispute should occur on the discussion page. I am even willing to go one step further and commit to not making any changes on the article before all objections to a change to a section are first negotiated. I believe that would solve most of our problems.
- Feel free to make other suggestions or observations, the point is there are less then 10 days before the editing restriction is removed. Either we can agree to live together on the same page or if you think that is a waste of time, make a formal complaint.-- scuro 16:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agree, mediator. We haven't made any progress, and my good faith edits to improve the accuracy of an article are seen as sabotage for an subversive agenda to twist people's views into something untrue.-- Loodog 20:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I haven't been on. Exams really hurt ya. Anyway everyone please be patient. Now, everyone please answer these questions:
- What needs to be changed?
- Why does it need to be changed?
- Do you have anything to reference the changes? No WP:OR
I don't want to know word for word, just the basics. We need to compromise on this quickly as scuro has stated. We don't have much time. Jac roe 20:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV(All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.)-Specifically, Staug73 sees nothing wrong with overweighting of older and generally irrelvant info, data, and studies. When we attempt to correct, he reverts edits. When we then place an NPOV tag on the article or subsection, Staug73 takes them down. In these subsections, info from the 40's to 70's were often at the start of a subsection and relevant and recent info much further down.
- WP:OWN (This page in a nutshell: If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and allow them to do so.) Staug73's actions would indicate that he believes certain subsections of the article such as the history section is his. eg the post, "Hands off - this is MY section". Another example is Staug73's wiping out subsections of the article if an edit is made with an opposing viewpoint, even if it has excellent current info and/or citations. The "intro" of the article currently has only 1 line. Staug73 wiped out the body of the "intro" stating, this was "something we could all agree upon". It looks like Staug73 wiped it all clean rather then deal with the new info added from our edits.
- WP:CON(This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.) Staug73 edits unilaterally and without comment in discussion...or more recently he edits unilaterally and then comments in discussion. He was asked repeatedly to use discussion first before making edits but ignored these comments. I don't believe he has ever tried to attempt consensus with us while we have been on this article...even when asked specifically and repeatedly to do so.
- WP:VER(This page in a nutshell:(Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources)Staug73's addition of John Breeding back into the main article even though it was moved to the separate ECT controversy article.
- Why does this behaviour need to be changed? Because we can't function as editors ("intenible situation")either we get into an edit war or we have to accept Staug73's edits. There is no direct communication in discussion. His reason behind his edits usually were made on the edit comment itself or not made at all. The article has suffered with several sections like the "intro" or "mechanisms of action" being wiped out or greatly reduced.-- scuro 03:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Re changes: as soon as the lock comes off I am going to remove Scuro's Devanand et al "quote" because it doesn't come from Devanand et al's article. Otherwise, I don't have a problem with the article in its current form. A slightly longer introduction along the lines of the one that was there before would perhaps be nice, but not if it is going to cause a lot of arguments.
Re historical bias - if you glance down the list of footnotes to number 51 (where the history section begins) you will see that they are almost all from recent sources. Staug73 14:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
My hope is that as soon as the lock comes off, Staug73 will post his criticisms of the Devanand edits in the discussion area where I will finally respond to them. Just because I haven't responded to them here doesn't mean that I fully or even partially agree with Staug73's contentions. That needs to be sorted out in discussion per WP:CON. I will not be unreasonable if something can be shown and cited. I have no problems with removal or change but all of that should be agreed to including the final implementation of change,..in discussion. This is especially true since ECT has become such a contentious article.
Historical bias- WP:CON There are other sections of the article that begin with historical perspectives at or near the beginning and then end with recent consensus in the field. There were more sections like this before we came to the article. Such an approach does not follow WP:NPOV, specifically undo-weight for information of less relevance. Specifically placing less important information first.-- scuro 16:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- What I've been seeing is that it's not an information dispute, but an talking dispute. For this to work, editors must discuss changes before taking action on them. Staug73, you need to discuss what and why you would make a changed before you make it. It's hard to assume good faith when other editors believe that you are, for a lack of a better word, "hurting" the article. Also please remember that the articles and sections are WP:NOTYOURS even if you contribute a good deal to it. Jac roe 21:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- As requested, I have put something about the "quote" on the discussion page. Staug73 14:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- So are we fine with this? We simply ask in discussion and seek consensus before making changes? I can certainly live with that. Issues like brain damage have already been taken up in discussion by other editors so that will be more of a group thing anyways. I really do think it is possible that we can live on the same page. About the only thing that I still think needs changing is that the several subsections that were previoulsy deleted or mostly deleted, need to be restored. The deletion of that information has harmed the article.--
scuro 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm sure you can talk about it since staug73 has agreed to talking on the discussion page. After all, Wikipedia is not a paper dictionary; everything's saved on the servers.
Jac
roe 01:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Staug73, are you cool with things this way? Can we work things out in discussion before hand to make the article better?-- scuro 03:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm sure you can talk about it since staug73 has agreed to talking on the discussion page. After all, Wikipedia is not a paper dictionary; everything's saved on the servers.
Jac
roe 01:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- So are we fine with this? We simply ask in discussion and seek consensus before making changes? I can certainly live with that. Issues like brain damage have already been taken up in discussion by other editors so that will be more of a group thing anyways. I really do think it is possible that we can live on the same page. About the only thing that I still think needs changing is that the several subsections that were previoulsy deleted or mostly deleted, need to be restored. The deletion of that information has harmed the article.--
scuro 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know. If you care to reply to what I posted on the discussion page re the Devanand et al. quote, then perhaps I will be able to get a better idea of whether or not it will be possible to work things out on the discussion page. Staug73 14:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Trust that I will reply, and assume WP:AGF. If you think I can't work in good faith, then say so and maybe we can sort that issue out here informally before the page opens up again this coming Tuesday. To waste this opportunity to come to an understanding would be a shame. Sometimes all you need to do is to communicate to understand someone elses viewpoints or actions.
- Wiki says this about those with opposing views:"One of the best experiences at Wikipedia happens among editors with deep differences. People don't have to agree about a topic to collaborate on a great article. All it takes is mutual respect and a willingness to abide by referenced sources and site policy. If you think you're right, dig up the very best evidence you can find and put that in the article. Let the other side's best evidence be a challenge to raise your own standards and always bear the big picture in mind: we're here to provide information for nonspecialists". I believe in these Wiki principles, do you? -- scuro 17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
( WP:EP) It is wonderful when someone adds a complete, well-written, final draft to Wikipedia. This should always be encouraged.
However, one of the great advantages of the Wiki system is that incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can evolve into polished, presentable masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing. This gives our approach an advantage over other ways of producing similar end-products. Hence, the submission of rough drafts should also be encouraged as much as possible.
Clearly no editor is free of bias, makes no writing errors, or never posts false information. It is pointless to note these shortcomings in one editor especially if it is used as a "bone of contention", because we all have these weaknesses and examples of each can be found in all of our postings. What matters is good faith and a willingness to work together.-- scuro 12:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- npov tags
- restoration of deleted sub-sections or mostly deleted subsections
- a commitment to post in discussion and seek consensus before editing, especially for this contentious article
-- scuro 12:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Staug73 still hasn't given a clear answer to this question: (So are we fine with this? We simply ask in discussion and seek consensus before making changes? ) nor has he responded at all to this question ( I believe in these Wiki principles, do you? ) Furthermore, he hasn't made comment about the unresolved issues posted above, yet when I did finally post in the "Quote from article by Devanand and colleagues" discussion area as requested by Staug73, I had a response in about 10 hours.
- Staug73 we have two days until the lock is removed. Should we not urgently try to come to an understanding in this time frame?-- scuro 15:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- However, one of the great advantages of the Wiki system is that incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can evolve into polished, presentable masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing. Unfortunately that can work in the other direction too, if you replace reasonably accurate writing with errors and misattributed quotes etc.
- Which sections is Scuro talking about? I took out the mechanism of action section because Scuro was complaining about it. No problem if people want it back. Staug73 13:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be talking about the intro and other sections. I have reposted the last version of the intro in discussion. Feel free to edit it there if it is not satisfactory. I generally don't find fault with the accuracy of the article but more with the bias, specifically undo weight issues. I'm willing to post possible edits in discussion first if Staug73 does likewise.
- Now about the issues of:
- npov tags
- a commitment to post in discussion and seek consensus before editing, especially for this contentious article
- Now about the issues of:
- -- scuro 14:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have posted the original introduction on the discussion page, as I think that is the one we should start from. I have looked back through the history of the discussion page and I couldn't find any record of Scuro having posted in discussion or having sought concensus before changing the original introduction. Have I missed something? Also, I couldn't find any consensus before Scuro removed the controversy section.
- Re POV tags. I have read the Wiki guidelines again and cannot see that the article, in its current form, is POV. Staug73 15:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the general policy for wikipedia articles is just to make the changes without asking unless disagreement arises, in which case all changes should be discussed first.-- Loodog 16:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- So, are we cool on everything? Is everything fine? Staug73 will discuss changes, sections will be discussed, then added, and there is no POV? Jac roe 20:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Jacroe, as I understand it consensus should be attempted in good faith. Personal comments should be eliminated. No one owns a section and everyone can contribute at anytime. If several editors have attempted consensus and they don't want to get into a revert war it is acceptable to put a npov tag on a section especially if a case for bias has been made. No editor should take off a npov tag without consensus from the other editors. Am I correct in these assumptions?
- I do have POV issues in the article still, mainly of undo-weight. I am willing not to put NPOV tags on the article or sections as long as we are working together. It would be a real gesture of good faith if Staug73 could commit on working together and commit to consensus.-- scuro 03:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Scuro has just said this about me on the discussion page: "I'd ask Staug73 to kindly leave any judgements about me out of the discussion area. Wikipedia clearly states this in their policy. "comment on the content not the contributor".
- As far as I am aware I have made no comments on Scuro on the discussion page, so I would like an explanation. Staug73 08:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Here is the full quote:
- Finally I am quite capable of assessing information, and judging that information for myself, thank you very much. I'd ask Staug73 to kindly leave any judgments about me out of the discussion area. Wikipedia clearly states this in their policy. "comment on the content not the contributor". Staug73, having left the door open I'd like to comment that as far as any superiority of judgement goes, your instance that the original biased section should stand, clearly counters your contention.
- and what bothered me at the time...
- 5) "I noticed that whilst retaining a the Weiner article you left out the sentence “An open peer commentary attracted both agreement and criticism”. Why? This is a perfectly verifiable sentence. I think leaving it out is an example of POV.
- 6) You have really mangled the Calloway study and are misrepresenting their views. Why? Have you read the study? If not, you will have to leave it alone and trust me to have accurately summarised their conclusions".
- I could get into a debate about a history of condescending remarks or debate the point you are trying to make in #5, but I won't. Perhaps I overreacted and if you had pointed this out in discussion I probably would have said so. I'm not perfect and and quite willing to state this when I make a mistake. Also, it would also be nice if you communicated to me directly. I can't remember if you have ever done that.
- But lets keep our eye on the ball, after all this is the date that the lock is supposed to come off. Questions have been asked of you and we should finish with this process.-- scuro 11:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If staug73 will agree to the terms, I would say that this case is closed. -- Jac roe 05:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Jacroe, what terms are we talking about? Staug73 16:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Basically, consensus should be attempted in good faith. Personal comments should be eliminated. No one owns a section and everyone can contribute at anytime. If several editors have attempted consensus and they don't want to get into a revert war it is acceptable to put a npov tag on a section especially if a case for bias has been made. No editor should take off a npov tag without consensus from the other editors. Jac roe 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see your reply. Could we just clear up one thing, please. No-one is suggesting that I have made personal comments about anyone, are they? Staug73 15:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah Staug73 remarks directed my way were personal in nature.
- But again...lets keep our eye on the ball, it's not about what was said in the past, it's about moving forward. Jacroe has given guidelines. It would be an act of good faith by everyone to simply acknowledge these guidelines and state that they will abide by them. I make that commitment now.-- scuro 16:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah Staug73 remarks directed my way were personal in nature. What remarks, please? Could you say exactly what remarks you are referring to, with date and time? Staug73 16:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Staug73, if I felt this was going to be productive I'd make the effort. How about a display of good faith to spur me on?--21:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Scuro, you made an accusation. Could you please substantiate it.09:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)09:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Staug73 09:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Article | Electroconvulsive therapy |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Mediator(s) | Jacroe |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Electroconvulsive therapy]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Electroconvulsive therapy]]
Request Information
Who are the involved parties?
Staug73 v Loodog and Scuro
What's going on?
I (Staug73) think Loodog and Scuro are trying to sabotage this article, I think that the NPOV tag is unwarranted (they won't say which statements they think are not neutral) and their demands for more footnotes a bit unreasonable (I don't mind putting in a few more, but I think the article is already well-referenced). Also they are not being polite.
What would you like to change about that?
I would like them to remain civil and reasonable and not keep putting on a NPOV tag. If they have any suggestions about improving the article then I would be happy to hear them, but they don't seem to know much about the subject or be interested in writing something.
Staug73 statement
Hi, could I first of all remind Scuro that Wiki is an encyclopedia, it is not intended to be a resource for people "at the point of crisis". Wiki is definitely not about giving people medical advice. That said, of course, people in crisis may be reading Wiki and yes, that is something I bear in mind. But an encyclopedia article about a medical treatment may contain information about the history of a treatment that you wouldn't expect to find in a patient information leaflet. I am however, quite amenable to moving some things around. Re the POV accusations - I have put in a RfC but have only had one response - from Scuro! I did have one response (from someone not involved with the article) on my talk page. It was wholly positive. I will have another go at a RfC request - but could we please leave the response for comment section on the discussion page blank for responses from people who respond to the request? I have tried to stick to facts and, where opinions differ, to say who says what. Obviously this is difficult when you are dealing with a very controversial topic. In the meantime, could I ask Scuro to read the wiki guidelines on POV? Staug73 15:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Mediator response
Hey, I'm Jacroe. I'll be the mediator for this case. Have both parties agreed to the terms on the WP:MEDCAB site? Jac roe 22:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jacroe. Yes, I have read the medcab page and agree to terms. Am I meant to reply here or on your talk page? Staug73 15:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just reply here. If you would tell a statement about what's happened above. Jac roe 18:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
From my vantage point the article is clearly biased and was blatantly so before requests for citations and edits were made. I have informally stated several times in the discussion area why I believe this article to be biased. Recently I have also posted clear examples of very flawed sections and further reasons why I find the article biased. At this point I have committed myself to editing the whole article because of the bias of the information presented. Why? because unsuspecting readers who may be, or have loved ones at a point of crisis, may be looking at Wikipedia for answers. They won't find a balanced article here. One solution is to allow me to continue. Granted this will be a long process, especially if this is mainly done in discussion. I am willing but while this process goes on a NPOV tag should stay on the article as this is being done. If someone wants to make a formal process out of this, so be it.
At first glance, my knowledge of this subject doesn't seem to be inferior to Staug73 and that's not really the issue here. It is an issue of an article that is clearly biased. I'm also quite willing to discuss this matter as my multiple posts in discussion clearly illustrates. As for the issue of the NPOV tag, I've given up there after several attempts to repost the tag. It was simply taken down every time I posted it. I still find the article biased and presently it should have an NPOV tag on it to alert readers. -- scuro 21:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to create an article based on contempory usage with sources for strong claims about ECT. The article blatantly skews modern views on ECT by overemphasizing historical perspective. My edits have primarily consisted of adding pov, fact, and or tags, in addition to things like removing John Breeding's viewpoints, which were given an entire section and called "Psychological Effects", as if it were some common concensus. I would request of Staug73 to 1) assume good faith and 2) refrain from personal attacks. As for the NPOV tag, it stays so long as there is disagreement. To do otherwise would be a misrepresentation of collective editors' opinions of the article, providing false assurance to readers. I agree with Scuro that the article should be appropriately balanced for whatever use the article receives and it it isn't, should definitely have a disclaimer.-- Loodog 01:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of the outcome of this process, we need to live in the same "space". I find it highly challenging to work on the article with editors who remove IPOV tags and delete major subsections all without a peep in discussion. The discussion page is not being used the way it is meant to be used. We use discussion pages to communicate and reach collaborative decisions, especially when there is widespread disagreement...hence the word, "consensus". I respectfully ask Staug73, to undo his recent major edits and follow this process as laid out in Wiki guidelines. Talk and reach consensus before you do. That is a process I am willing to follow to the letter if I know that other editors will also respect this process.-- scuro 20:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
My edits are deleted my ipov tags are deleted and no recent communication in discussion. I can not function as an editor. HELP!! I am asking for intervention now. Please respond mediator.-- scuro 16:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I could ask an administrator for full protection with a NPOV tag on the article for one week if Loodog and Staug73 agree to this. Then we would have a week to discuss this. It would do no harm. How about it?
Jac
roe 21:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Accepted.-- Loodog 02:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"Electroconvulsive therapy; 17:29(+14)Staug73 (Talk | contribs) (→The History of ECT - Hands off - this is MY section (for the history taken out of rest of article))" Each day gets worse with further sections removed. I don't know how to say this nicely....Jacroe, you have my blessings to attempt anything as long as in the end we don't make exceptions to placate other members.-- scuro 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've made a request for an administrator full protect for one or two weeks. We will resume once this is accepted (cross-fingers) or declined. Jac roe 17:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Protection was granted and that makes me feel a lot more positive about this process. Again, I'll make the offer to follow wiki guidelines about editing "to the letter" if others follow suite. If all agreed to this most of the frustration and problems would disappear.-- scuro 19:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. That gives everyone a breather. Staug73 14:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I still see this conflict as a problem of not following Wikipedia procedure, lack of communication, and high levels of frustration ...rather then of sabotage. Granted our views on this page are polar as they most likely are on even methods of procedure but that doesn't mean we can't coexist on the same page. These difficulties can be overcome with good faith and some work. If others agree then I suggest we move forward towards an informal process.
If on the other hand this dispute is still seen as a case of willful sabotage then this impression should be reconfirmed and this process should move towards a formal hearing. I am ready when others are ready.-- scuro 16:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think the danger to this article is that is will be sabotaged by a combination of strong POV and lack of knowledge of the subject/writing skills. I will use Scuro's last edit as an example:
- Prior to the edit there was, in the section of Research into structural brain damage a brief, NPOV and accurate discussion of three reviews of the literature, in chronological order: 1982, 1984, 1994 (apologies - the date for the review by Devanand et al should be 1994, not 1991). Scuro decided this was POV and that the 1994 study should be mentioned first, which puts them in the rather illogical order 1994, 1982, 1984 (but I am not going to argue about it!)
- The problem is that, in moving the 1994 review, Scuro has managed to introduce five errors (not counting spelling mistakes)
- 1. Devanand had 4 co-authors - it is not "he" and "his". Also - a minor point- it would be nice to say who he is, for example, "Psychiatrist...".
- 2. Why has one review become "several recent reviews"? If there are others, why haven't they appeared in the footnote? And did they "conduct" different reviews? Or just publish the same one in different places? Another minor point - "1994" is probably better than "recent".
- 3."possible" should be "structural" (that is what the review is about)
- 4. Major point: I don't think that quote is actually in the review cited (the one in the footnote). So where does it come from?
- 5. "He concluded that ECT induced cognitive deficits are transient." The other half of that sentence (the bit after "although") needs to be included, otherwise it changes the meaning of what the authors said.
- 6 Not exactly an error, but introduces repetition: if a quote is included about the authors' conclusion you can take out "concluded that no evidence of structural brain damage as a result of ECT has been found." You don't need both.
Staug73 14:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me if my last post wasn't polished but that lack of refinement has been caused by recent conditioning on the ECT article. You see several of my most recent edits have been deleted. Therefore, I wasn't going to invest a lot of time into this procedure. I first wanted to see if ANY of my contribution would "stick" to the page. When your work isn't respected you tend not to invest a lot of yourself into something.
Criticisms #1-#6 should be posted on the discussion page as should all criticisms. In fact I have continually invited editors to post in discussion instead of on the edit message itself or not at all...so that real communication can begin. Could Staug73 be totally correct in his 6 point critique? I don't know because I'll respond to these points when I see them posted in discussion. Are there errors in my post that may need to be fixed? Sure...if this is pointed out to me with the opportunity of rebuttal, I would personally amend posts or give any corrections my blessings.
My "strong POV" generally is nothing more then quotes and connecting information in a coherent way. There is very little or no opinion in any of my edits. All of this information can be referenced, and all of it is from acceptable sources of information. Contrast that to editors who posted and reposted clearly POV material that shouldn't be on the article such as the musings of John Breeding.
But all of this is not the point, is it? We all have bias and others who have polar points of view on other articles can live together on the same page. Wikipedia has a standard which when it is followed eliminates a great deal of bias. Some also think I may not be knowledgeable about this topic but again, Wikipedia has a process and clear standards about what should go on a page and how to eliminate factual errors.
So in my mind, the real question still is do some editors see other editors as working in bad faith to willfully sabotage the article? Does the complainant still believe this?-- scuro 17:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Scuro, are you over 21? Staug73 17:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I passed that milestone a long time ago....-- scuro 22:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
To date we have had no movement on Staug73's part and we have only seen further complaints. He hasn't even commented on whether he still believes his original complaint of "sabotage" still holds and if we are to resolve these issues there is work to do. All parties have something to gain by working together.-- scuro 00:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Mediator, are we meant to be doing something? If so what? Yes, I do believe that this article is at risk of sabotage by people who have come here with an agenda from the Psychiatry/anti-psychiatry debate and don't know enough about ECT to make useful judgements about or contributions to this article. Witness the bit I posted above. Perhaps I have been too accommodating up to now. Staug73 15:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Staug73, Wikipedia is, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The banner doesn't say, "the free encyclopedia that one can only edit if one personally believes that one is free of bias and highly knowledgeable about a subject".
- If you believe that you have been "too accommodating" till now for those with an "agenda", make a formal complaint. At that point I will not only show that we didn't sabotage the article or do anything else that you have complained about, but rather that all of your complaints are true of your own behaviour. If that is course of action I will ask the mediator to consider all of this before they make judgement and choose a course of action.
- If on the other hand you first want to attempt to resolve this informally, I am open to work with those who want a solution and are have good faith to resolve this problem. To solve this problem I believe the first step would be to look at communication and following Wikipedia guidelines in this regard. Again, I have made that point from the time that I first edited this page.
- I believe that all communication about a dispute should occur on the discussion page. I am even willing to go one step further and commit to not making any changes on the article before all objections to a change to a section are first negotiated. I believe that would solve most of our problems.
- Feel free to make other suggestions or observations, the point is there are less then 10 days before the editing restriction is removed. Either we can agree to live together on the same page or if you think that is a waste of time, make a formal complaint.-- scuro 16:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agree, mediator. We haven't made any progress, and my good faith edits to improve the accuracy of an article are seen as sabotage for an subversive agenda to twist people's views into something untrue.-- Loodog 20:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I haven't been on. Exams really hurt ya. Anyway everyone please be patient. Now, everyone please answer these questions:
- What needs to be changed?
- Why does it need to be changed?
- Do you have anything to reference the changes? No WP:OR
I don't want to know word for word, just the basics. We need to compromise on this quickly as scuro has stated. We don't have much time. Jac roe 20:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV(All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.)-Specifically, Staug73 sees nothing wrong with overweighting of older and generally irrelvant info, data, and studies. When we attempt to correct, he reverts edits. When we then place an NPOV tag on the article or subsection, Staug73 takes them down. In these subsections, info from the 40's to 70's were often at the start of a subsection and relevant and recent info much further down.
- WP:OWN (This page in a nutshell: If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and allow them to do so.) Staug73's actions would indicate that he believes certain subsections of the article such as the history section is his. eg the post, "Hands off - this is MY section". Another example is Staug73's wiping out subsections of the article if an edit is made with an opposing viewpoint, even if it has excellent current info and/or citations. The "intro" of the article currently has only 1 line. Staug73 wiped out the body of the "intro" stating, this was "something we could all agree upon". It looks like Staug73 wiped it all clean rather then deal with the new info added from our edits.
- WP:CON(This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.) Staug73 edits unilaterally and without comment in discussion...or more recently he edits unilaterally and then comments in discussion. He was asked repeatedly to use discussion first before making edits but ignored these comments. I don't believe he has ever tried to attempt consensus with us while we have been on this article...even when asked specifically and repeatedly to do so.
- WP:VER(This page in a nutshell:(Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources)Staug73's addition of John Breeding back into the main article even though it was moved to the separate ECT controversy article.
- Why does this behaviour need to be changed? Because we can't function as editors ("intenible situation")either we get into an edit war or we have to accept Staug73's edits. There is no direct communication in discussion. His reason behind his edits usually were made on the edit comment itself or not made at all. The article has suffered with several sections like the "intro" or "mechanisms of action" being wiped out or greatly reduced.-- scuro 03:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Re changes: as soon as the lock comes off I am going to remove Scuro's Devanand et al "quote" because it doesn't come from Devanand et al's article. Otherwise, I don't have a problem with the article in its current form. A slightly longer introduction along the lines of the one that was there before would perhaps be nice, but not if it is going to cause a lot of arguments.
Re historical bias - if you glance down the list of footnotes to number 51 (where the history section begins) you will see that they are almost all from recent sources. Staug73 14:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
My hope is that as soon as the lock comes off, Staug73 will post his criticisms of the Devanand edits in the discussion area where I will finally respond to them. Just because I haven't responded to them here doesn't mean that I fully or even partially agree with Staug73's contentions. That needs to be sorted out in discussion per WP:CON. I will not be unreasonable if something can be shown and cited. I have no problems with removal or change but all of that should be agreed to including the final implementation of change,..in discussion. This is especially true since ECT has become such a contentious article.
Historical bias- WP:CON There are other sections of the article that begin with historical perspectives at or near the beginning and then end with recent consensus in the field. There were more sections like this before we came to the article. Such an approach does not follow WP:NPOV, specifically undo-weight for information of less relevance. Specifically placing less important information first.-- scuro 16:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- What I've been seeing is that it's not an information dispute, but an talking dispute. For this to work, editors must discuss changes before taking action on them. Staug73, you need to discuss what and why you would make a changed before you make it. It's hard to assume good faith when other editors believe that you are, for a lack of a better word, "hurting" the article. Also please remember that the articles and sections are WP:NOTYOURS even if you contribute a good deal to it. Jac roe 21:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- As requested, I have put something about the "quote" on the discussion page. Staug73 14:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- So are we fine with this? We simply ask in discussion and seek consensus before making changes? I can certainly live with that. Issues like brain damage have already been taken up in discussion by other editors so that will be more of a group thing anyways. I really do think it is possible that we can live on the same page. About the only thing that I still think needs changing is that the several subsections that were previoulsy deleted or mostly deleted, need to be restored. The deletion of that information has harmed the article.--
scuro 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm sure you can talk about it since staug73 has agreed to talking on the discussion page. After all, Wikipedia is not a paper dictionary; everything's saved on the servers.
Jac
roe 01:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Staug73, are you cool with things this way? Can we work things out in discussion before hand to make the article better?-- scuro 03:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm sure you can talk about it since staug73 has agreed to talking on the discussion page. After all, Wikipedia is not a paper dictionary; everything's saved on the servers.
Jac
roe 01:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- So are we fine with this? We simply ask in discussion and seek consensus before making changes? I can certainly live with that. Issues like brain damage have already been taken up in discussion by other editors so that will be more of a group thing anyways. I really do think it is possible that we can live on the same page. About the only thing that I still think needs changing is that the several subsections that were previoulsy deleted or mostly deleted, need to be restored. The deletion of that information has harmed the article.--
scuro 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know. If you care to reply to what I posted on the discussion page re the Devanand et al. quote, then perhaps I will be able to get a better idea of whether or not it will be possible to work things out on the discussion page. Staug73 14:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Trust that I will reply, and assume WP:AGF. If you think I can't work in good faith, then say so and maybe we can sort that issue out here informally before the page opens up again this coming Tuesday. To waste this opportunity to come to an understanding would be a shame. Sometimes all you need to do is to communicate to understand someone elses viewpoints or actions.
- Wiki says this about those with opposing views:"One of the best experiences at Wikipedia happens among editors with deep differences. People don't have to agree about a topic to collaborate on a great article. All it takes is mutual respect and a willingness to abide by referenced sources and site policy. If you think you're right, dig up the very best evidence you can find and put that in the article. Let the other side's best evidence be a challenge to raise your own standards and always bear the big picture in mind: we're here to provide information for nonspecialists". I believe in these Wiki principles, do you? -- scuro 17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
( WP:EP) It is wonderful when someone adds a complete, well-written, final draft to Wikipedia. This should always be encouraged.
However, one of the great advantages of the Wiki system is that incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can evolve into polished, presentable masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing. This gives our approach an advantage over other ways of producing similar end-products. Hence, the submission of rough drafts should also be encouraged as much as possible.
Clearly no editor is free of bias, makes no writing errors, or never posts false information. It is pointless to note these shortcomings in one editor especially if it is used as a "bone of contention", because we all have these weaknesses and examples of each can be found in all of our postings. What matters is good faith and a willingness to work together.-- scuro 12:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- npov tags
- restoration of deleted sub-sections or mostly deleted subsections
- a commitment to post in discussion and seek consensus before editing, especially for this contentious article
-- scuro 12:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Staug73 still hasn't given a clear answer to this question: (So are we fine with this? We simply ask in discussion and seek consensus before making changes? ) nor has he responded at all to this question ( I believe in these Wiki principles, do you? ) Furthermore, he hasn't made comment about the unresolved issues posted above, yet when I did finally post in the "Quote from article by Devanand and colleagues" discussion area as requested by Staug73, I had a response in about 10 hours.
- Staug73 we have two days until the lock is removed. Should we not urgently try to come to an understanding in this time frame?-- scuro 15:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- However, one of the great advantages of the Wiki system is that incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can evolve into polished, presentable masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing. Unfortunately that can work in the other direction too, if you replace reasonably accurate writing with errors and misattributed quotes etc.
- Which sections is Scuro talking about? I took out the mechanism of action section because Scuro was complaining about it. No problem if people want it back. Staug73 13:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be talking about the intro and other sections. I have reposted the last version of the intro in discussion. Feel free to edit it there if it is not satisfactory. I generally don't find fault with the accuracy of the article but more with the bias, specifically undo weight issues. I'm willing to post possible edits in discussion first if Staug73 does likewise.
- Now about the issues of:
- npov tags
- a commitment to post in discussion and seek consensus before editing, especially for this contentious article
- Now about the issues of:
- -- scuro 14:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have posted the original introduction on the discussion page, as I think that is the one we should start from. I have looked back through the history of the discussion page and I couldn't find any record of Scuro having posted in discussion or having sought concensus before changing the original introduction. Have I missed something? Also, I couldn't find any consensus before Scuro removed the controversy section.
- Re POV tags. I have read the Wiki guidelines again and cannot see that the article, in its current form, is POV. Staug73 15:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the general policy for wikipedia articles is just to make the changes without asking unless disagreement arises, in which case all changes should be discussed first.-- Loodog 16:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- So, are we cool on everything? Is everything fine? Staug73 will discuss changes, sections will be discussed, then added, and there is no POV? Jac roe 20:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Jacroe, as I understand it consensus should be attempted in good faith. Personal comments should be eliminated. No one owns a section and everyone can contribute at anytime. If several editors have attempted consensus and they don't want to get into a revert war it is acceptable to put a npov tag on a section especially if a case for bias has been made. No editor should take off a npov tag without consensus from the other editors. Am I correct in these assumptions?
- I do have POV issues in the article still, mainly of undo-weight. I am willing not to put NPOV tags on the article or sections as long as we are working together. It would be a real gesture of good faith if Staug73 could commit on working together and commit to consensus.-- scuro 03:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Scuro has just said this about me on the discussion page: "I'd ask Staug73 to kindly leave any judgements about me out of the discussion area. Wikipedia clearly states this in their policy. "comment on the content not the contributor".
- As far as I am aware I have made no comments on Scuro on the discussion page, so I would like an explanation. Staug73 08:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Here is the full quote:
- Finally I am quite capable of assessing information, and judging that information for myself, thank you very much. I'd ask Staug73 to kindly leave any judgments about me out of the discussion area. Wikipedia clearly states this in their policy. "comment on the content not the contributor". Staug73, having left the door open I'd like to comment that as far as any superiority of judgement goes, your instance that the original biased section should stand, clearly counters your contention.
- and what bothered me at the time...
- 5) "I noticed that whilst retaining a the Weiner article you left out the sentence “An open peer commentary attracted both agreement and criticism”. Why? This is a perfectly verifiable sentence. I think leaving it out is an example of POV.
- 6) You have really mangled the Calloway study and are misrepresenting their views. Why? Have you read the study? If not, you will have to leave it alone and trust me to have accurately summarised their conclusions".
- I could get into a debate about a history of condescending remarks or debate the point you are trying to make in #5, but I won't. Perhaps I overreacted and if you had pointed this out in discussion I probably would have said so. I'm not perfect and and quite willing to state this when I make a mistake. Also, it would also be nice if you communicated to me directly. I can't remember if you have ever done that.
- But lets keep our eye on the ball, after all this is the date that the lock is supposed to come off. Questions have been asked of you and we should finish with this process.-- scuro 11:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If staug73 will agree to the terms, I would say that this case is closed. -- Jac roe 05:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Jacroe, what terms are we talking about? Staug73 16:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Basically, consensus should be attempted in good faith. Personal comments should be eliminated. No one owns a section and everyone can contribute at anytime. If several editors have attempted consensus and they don't want to get into a revert war it is acceptable to put a npov tag on a section especially if a case for bias has been made. No editor should take off a npov tag without consensus from the other editors. Jac roe 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see your reply. Could we just clear up one thing, please. No-one is suggesting that I have made personal comments about anyone, are they? Staug73 15:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah Staug73 remarks directed my way were personal in nature.
- But again...lets keep our eye on the ball, it's not about what was said in the past, it's about moving forward. Jacroe has given guidelines. It would be an act of good faith by everyone to simply acknowledge these guidelines and state that they will abide by them. I make that commitment now.-- scuro 16:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah Staug73 remarks directed my way were personal in nature. What remarks, please? Could you say exactly what remarks you are referring to, with date and time? Staug73 16:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Staug73, if I felt this was going to be productive I'd make the effort. How about a display of good faith to spur me on?--21:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Scuro, you made an accusation. Could you please substantiate it.09:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)09:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Staug73 09:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)