"Dr. Barkley, who edits sluggish cognitive tempo’s Wikipedia page, declined a request to discuss his financial interests in the condition’s acceptance." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/12/health/idea-of-new-attention-disorder-spurs-research-and-debate.html You can tell us... `User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me say that Alan Schwarz's article is highly misleading both when he says that I refused to discuss my financial interests with him (I refused to be interviewed by him - period). It is precisely for this sort of highly biased writing in this and his previous articles on ADHD as well as his use of innuendo to distort or bias readers that I declined to be interviewed by him. It is most interesting that he then chooses to present this as a refusal to discuss a financial interest (about which he never asked me) rather than my outright refusal to be interviewed about anything with him. He also misrepresents my royalties from my rating scales claiming that I receive $131 for each rating scale when that is patently false. Guilford Press, the publisher of that scale, receives that income. I am paid a rather small percentage as a royalty out of that amount, as is typical of publishing books and scales in this field. I am pleased to note I was in good company as other researchers in this area also refused to be interviewed by this highly biased journalist.

Second, I fail to see any conflict of interest in my editing of this topic on SCT. Yes, I do speak for various pharmaceutical companies. This is widely known, is mentioned at the opening slide in any professional presentations I give, and is acknowledged in my peer reviewed publications. I also speak for a variety of universities, hospitals, associations, conferences, etc. each year for which I am customarily paid an honorarium. These, too, are acknowledged in all of my presentations. I also have written CE courses on the internet for which I receive a small royalty, none of which are on this topic. The fact that I occasionally speak at pharmaceutical company sponsored events is also posted at the various pharmaceutical company websites as part of their efforts at transparency and public disclosure of relationships with scientists. So any innuendo here that my compensated activities are somehow not disclosed is without merit. No pharmaceutical company has any medication on the market that is FDA approved for treating SCT. And that is because SCT is not an officially recognized clinical diagnosis (as yet) by the American Psychiatric Association or any other professional association to my knowledge. It is a relatively newly discovered condition that is receiving increasing research in psychology and psychiatry. So just where here is that financial conflict of interest represented? I am not paid by any drug company to speak on SCT and no such company has any product FDA-approved for it from which they derive any income. So there is no conflict of interest. I have received no payments for any of my articles on this topic either. Moreover, the fact that I receive a small royalty for my adult ADHD rating scale that contains a small set of items clinicians can begin to use to screen for this possible condition hardly rises to the level of a conflict of interest. The scale is marketed as an ADHD rating scale, of which there are many on the market as well. No one here has provided any evidence of a financial conflict of interest and that is because there is none. To imply otherwise here is to permeate a falsehood.

As a leading researcher and writer in this area, in editing this page I was attempting to convey the current status of this field, as was also reflected in my review of this topic published in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology in January. That is all that was intended here. Anyone else knowledgeable of this scientific literature is free to correct any statements I have made here about the condition, providing appropriate references for their editing, of course. But accusations of any conflicts of interest with my editing of this topic have no basis in fact. RussellBarkley (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Thank you for the notice. This repeat what I have reported under the NYTimes article about SCT (and me).

First, let me say that Alan Schwarz's article is highly misleading both when he says that I refused to discuss my financial interests with him (I refused to be interviewed by him - period). It is precisely for this sort of highly biased writing in this and his previous articles on ADHD as well as his use of innuendo to distort or bias readers that I declined to be interviewed by him. It is most interesting that he then chooses to present this as a refusal to discuss a financial interest (about which he never asked me) rather than my outright refusal to be interviewed about anything with him. He also misrepresents my royalties from my rating scales claiming that I receive $131 for each rating scale when that is patently false. Guilford Press, the publisher of that scale, receives that income. I am paid a rather small percentage as a royalty out of that amount, as is typical of publishing books and scales in this field. I am pleased to note I was in good company as other researchers in this area also refused to be interviewed by this highly biased journalist.

Second, I fail to see any conflict of interest in my editing of this topic on SCT. Yes, I do speak for various pharmaceutical companies. This is widely known, is mentioned at the opening slide in any professional presentations I give, and is acknowledged in my peer reviewed publications. I also speak for a variety of universities, hospitals, associations, conferences, etc. each year for which I am customarily paid an honorarium. These, too, are acknowledged in all of my presentations. I also have written CE courses on the internet for which I receive a small royalty, none of which are on this topic. The fact that I occasionally speak at pharmaceutical company sponsored events is also posted at the various pharmaceutical company websites as part of their efforts at transparency and public disclosure of relationships with scientists. So any innuendo here that my compensated activities are somehow not disclosed is without merit. No pharmaceutical company has any medication on the market that is FDA approved for treating SCT. And that is because SCT is not an officially recognized clinical diagnosis (as yet) by the American Psychiatric Association or any other professional association to my knowledge. It is a relatively newly discovered condition that is receiving increasing research in psychology and psychiatry. So just where here is that financial conflict of interest represented? I am not paid by any drug company to speak on SCT and no such company has any product FDA-approved for it from which they derive any income. So there is no conflict of interest. I have received no payments for any of my articles on this topic either. Moreover, the fact that I receive a small royalty for my adult ADHD rating scale that contains a small set of items clinicians can begin to use to screen for this possible condition hardly rises to the level of a conflict of interest. The scale is marketed as an ADHD rating scale, of which there are many on the market as well. No one here has provided any evidence of a financial conflict of interest and that is because there is none. To imply otherwise here is to permeate a falsehood.

As a leading researcher and writer in this area, in editing this page I was attempting to convey the current status of this field, as was also reflected in my review of this topic published in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology in January. That is all that was intended here. Anyone else knowledgeable of this scientific literature is free to correct any statements I have made here about the condition, providing appropriate references for their editing, of course. But accusations of any conflicts of interest with my editing of this topic have no basis in fact. RussellBarkley (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. RussellBarkley (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Administrator needed on Talk:Sluggish cognitive tempo. Thank you. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. DP 09:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information. The content in question will be removed. The intent here was to alert Wikipedia to false statements being made about me on the entry for SCT by other recent editors.RussellBarkley (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reports only things that are already in print from other sources. It's done from a neutral point of view, which means both GOOD and BAD occur. We don't do original research or synthesis. If a reliable source say "product A is going to be used for..." then it's acceptable to say that on Wikipedia. It is never acceptable to say "if you don't remove X, someone will sue" as that is a legal threat, even if you don't claim to be the one initiating the lawsuit. The intent of your words were to chill the conversation, and to prevent edits/statements that you did not want in there. By the way, if you're a representative of the company, you hold conflict of interest and we have much bigger issues to deal with in that case. You will need to go to all places where you suggested some form of lawsuit and use our strikeout function: <s> the words </s> which will be sufficient to retract your words which have been percieved as a legal threat. Don't make further ones. As per WP:DOLT you will need to calmly and with links to reliable sources try to suggest ways to repair the articles on the appropriate talkpage. However, we go by WP:CONSENSUS - if the material that you don't want has consensus to remain and it's validly sourced, then it remains - hence your requirement to act calmly in all situations. Again, do not make any further statements that can be perceieved as anyone as a legal threat ES&L 11:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some content from Sluggish cognitive tempo, which included unsubstantiated claims about you. Most of the content was totally unsourced, and the small part of it which claimed to be sourced in fact grossly misrepresented the source. I am willing to consider further action if necessary, including blocking editors who post unacceptable content, but I am short of time at present. Please feel welcome to contact me on my talk page if you need further help.

A word of advice. Wikipedia is produced not by a central organisation, but by a cloud of individuals. Controversial subjects attract editors whose purpose is to push an agenda, and some of them are unscrupulous in the methods they use. However, the vast majority of editors are acting in good faith. The best way to get changes for the better in a case such as this one is to try to persuade the majority of good-faith editors that you are being reasonable, and using threatening language does not tend to achieve that aim. Even when anger is fully justified, it is almost always more effective to avoid coming across as angry. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this additional information and intervention. I appreciate the recommendations and will adhere to them in the future. Respectfully, RussellBarkley (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for your decades of research. I really have benefited a lot from your books! Best of luck! Tardy1930 (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Russell Barkley,
It has recently come to my attention that there has been recent edits to the Wikipedia article (Russell Barkley) by a user of the name of RABarkley as recent as 28 November. The policy on Wikipedia is to always Assume Good Faith (see WP:AGF), which out in practice could make me assume that a user with said username may possibly just be one of many fans of yourself who has the intention of trying to improve said article. However, the edit summaries tell another story. This user has in fact admitted to be the subject of the article, which as it has already been made known is yourself. Can you please confirm for me if RABarkley is your account? Thanks. UaMaol (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear UaMaol,

That is in fact me, Russell A. Barkley, PhD. Thank you for checking on that issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C3:C201:67F0:15B6:3490:D2FB:69D9 (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Barkley,

Thanks you for your swift reply and confirmation. Back in April 2014 there was a Conflict Of Interest (see WP:COI) discussion surrounding the edits made to the article Sluggish cognitive tempo by your User:RussellBarkley account (see here). Good faith was rightly assumed there and I will again do the same. The issue at that time, if you remember, was primarily regarding the potential conflict of interest to which you may have in making edits to the content of an article to which you can, quite unarguably be considered, one of the leading world experts on. For several years I have been very much aware of your work on the subject and your major contributions to the field, however as any good student of history (or science, I guess) I am well aware of the bias which can exist in such a situation. As I imagine is likely incredibly common amongst Wikipædians (I am sure some of your patients are captivated by the regular dopamine hits of 'Wiki Adventure'), I have ADHD. I was diagnosed with the Predominantly Inattentive form of ADHD a few years ago as an adult, and indeed suspect I have SCT. With the aforementioned declaration, and the reverence shown before such, it could be argued that my own edits of both articles could in theory be a COI as I could have either an overly-positive or overly-critical agenda to my edits. However I am by no means considered highly influential in the subject matter nor may I potentially have anything physical to gain in doing so. I can completely understand wanting to add extra info or correct perceived mistakes in articles concerning yourself, but you must ensure that such is undertaken by an individual who is of a neutral view and that they are adhering to the policies on Wikipædia including the using of reliable sources in the correct manner. In other words, if you want to make edits to your own Wikipædia article, or any other article concerning yourself, you should add a new section to the respective talk page detailing what changes need to be made and sources which you have to back such up. A user should eventually get back to you to discuss and potentially implement said edits. If for whatever reason you are waiting a considerable time, feel free to leave a message on my own talk page (or even email me). I am not very active here but I would be more than happy to point you in the right direction.

On another matter. Is there a reason why you have two accounts on this website? Generally it is frowned upon to have more than one account, however there are many legitimate reasons, to which I assume you have one. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry for more information.

TO conclude, the normal procedure overall is to report potential infractions of Conflicts Of Interest and of potential Sockpuppetry. I, however do not feel it appropriate in this situation to do so. You come across as a very civil individual in your lectures and do not yet feel the need for outside influences. :)

Also, I apologise if my tone offends as such is unintended. Thanks. UaMaol (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken and your points are perfectly legitimate. My two accounts have mainly to do with two different email addresses, one of which is no longer active due to a hack of that email account by someone a few years ago. That said, I fully understand and appreciate the potential conflict of interest here. But nor can I sit idly by while critics having their own conflicts seek to essentially vandalize my biography with innuendo or their own biased agendas. Still, I appreciate the guidelines here and will respect them assuming others who edit my page are held to those same standards. I am glad my work may have been of some Value to you and others. I will leave the entry alone now but will check periodically to see if it has been hijacked by others having their own subservient agenda here. Thanks again and be well. 2601:5C3:C201:67F0:8932:15CA:D284:F80F (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]