![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 150 | ← | Archive 154 | Archive 155 | Archive 156 | Archive 157 | Archive 158 | → | Archive 160 |
(Selected comments copied from Jimbotalk, where they are about to get be removed by the 3-day archiving)
On 03 February 2006, it was reported to the WMF that our CAPTCHA system discriminates against blind people. See phabricator T6845. This appears to be a direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and leaves Wikipedia open to the possibility of a discrimination lawsuit.
In particular, National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. was a case where a major retailer, Target Corp., was sued because their web designers failed to design its website to enable persons with low or no vision to use it.
So why, after 13 years of inaction, do we not have a set of software requirements (including a testable definition of "done") and a schedule for solving this?
And no, I will not accept any proposed "solution" that lacks the name of an WMF employee who has been given the assignment of fixing this, a budget that says how much the WMF expects to spend on solving this, a deadline that say how long the WMF expects it to take to solve this, and a way for an independent third party to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met.
Regarding hiring someone else to fix this, I would very much like the idea to be given careful consideration rather than being dismissed out of hand. The WMF is great at running an encyclopedia. Nobody else, anywhere on earth, even comes close. However, running an encyclopedia does not magically confer the ability to create high-quality software, and the WMF has a pretty dismal track record in this area (Examples: Visual Editor, Flow, 13 years of failing to making this obvious but boring improvement to accommodate blind people.) I realize that this will anger some people, but why should it? Olympic-level athletes don't get angry when you tell them that their athletic ability does not magically confer the ability to repair automobiles or do astronomy.
Comments from the phabricator page:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
It's also not something that any team at the foundation is responsible for. This is likely not to be true. I realise the post was likely referring to teams on the technical side, but... if there is a mandate under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or subsequent legislation, then there is a team with responsibility at the WMF, its legal team (ping Interim General Counsel TSebro_(WMF)). There is also responsibility for legal compliance that goes to the CEO / ED (ping Katherine (WMF)) and ultimately, if management does not ensure compliance, to the Board (ping community trustees Doc James, Pundit and Raystorm). If putting into effect the excellent and appropriate 2006 non-discrimination principles stated by the Board or doing the right thing are not a sufficient motivators after such a long time, perhaps legal obligation / potential liability is a reason for action? I am assuming that everyone wants National Federation of the Blind v. WMF to remain a redlink, rather than becoming a sequel to National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp.? 13 years without solving an issue like this – and one the Chief Mediawiki Developer recognised as only needing people to do the necessary work (according to Guy's phabricator page quotes) – sounds indefensible. As Churchill would have said: "Action, this day." EdChem ( talk) 02:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, Jimbo and Doc James, will the board be asking our CEO why this remains unfixed some time in the near future? Or will we be back here having this same conversation at 14 years and 15 years? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I am having a bit of a quandary here.
I see "I'll try to get more educated on the topic, and hopefully give more information in the coming weeks" at [ https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T6845 ] but nothing since.
I am seeing the same thing at [ /info/en/?search=User_talk:Doc_James#13_years ]: "working on it" then nothing.
The cynic in me says that if I keep patently waiting nothing will happen and after a while I will be posting a "14 years" complaint, but it I start making noise about hearing nothing I will be embarrassed to discover that someone has been furiously working on this and watch as they change the Wikimedia software in a way that solves everything -- 15 minutes after I hit send on my complaint.
I am left with these known facts:
So I ask the community: how long is a reasonable time for me to patently wait without any updates before going back to complaining about WMF inaction? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi There, thanks for the edits on my clumsy edits re: metronidazole benzoate and the (I suspect) myth that post-gastric delivery is a problem.
I haven't got access to Kucers' myself, but am doing what I can to get access from colleagues.
I wonder is ref 13 on the metronidazole page /info/en/?search=Metronidazole should be removed entirely as it makes an assertion without evidence - and as I noted, in personal communication, the authors were unable to provide a source.
One said "maybe Martindale" but Martindale doesn't support it either.
What do you think?
Do you happen to have access to the monograph in Kucers' you could share? or give me references from Kucers'?
I have a suspicion that this is nothing other than a longstanding, clinically irrelevant myth that refuses to die, but I'm more than happy to be proved wrong!
Kind Regards
TheConfusion (
talk)
12:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
"This may require hydrolysis in the gastrointestinal tract" probably wants referencing to Martindale, which is here: https://about.medicinescomplete.com/publication/martindale-the-complete-drug-reference/ but not open access. Martindale appears to be the source of much of the "hydrolysed in the GI tract" narrative, but even they don't provide a supporting reference for the statement.
This paper( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1427741/pdf/brjclinpharm00190-0049.pdf) on benzoylmetronidazole's pharmacokinetics states "Benzoylmetronidazole has been formulated to hydrolyse in the gastrointestinal tract to release therapeutic doses of metronidazole over a period of several hours". I can't imagine that as little as 5 minutes spent in the stomach matters that much. TheConfusion ( talk) 15:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The submission was declined, updated and resubmitted. It's more than 10 weeks waiting a review, and I found out that it the title existed without content, prompting a re-creation with the title.
May you look at it, if it doesn't fly then leave it such, but if it does, re-instate it, then the other draft be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pshegs ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Doc James, I modified my edit and included a couple of references. Please note that no reliable medical sources state that temperatures measured at the axilla and tympanic membrane are comparable. According to every reliable medical source, temperatures taken at the tympanic membrane roughly equate to rectal temperatures. Many sources also include measurements at the temporal artery. 156.204.50.103 ( talk) 15:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee, having reviewed the evidence presented to them by WMF Trust & Safety and the community, have found Fram's one year ban imposed by WMF to have been disproportionate and have set it aside, while stripping him of administrator status pending a new Referral for Adminship vote for "a pattern of borderline harassment against multiple individuals, through hounding the individuals and excessively highlighting their failures."
Do you have an opinion about the structure of this case and this particular result? What will you do to insure that WMF respects the result? Carrite ( talk) 11:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@James:- Two questions for you, that we are nearing the end of this show:-
(1) JBHunley has since discovered evidence, that a certain user who is obviously conflicted with a current Board Trustee, has engaged in paid-editing for years without any disclosure and moreover, actively denied, when asked about it. What's your views about the overall optics of this specific situation, at a time when WMF is supposedly trying to fight UPE and thus enforce TOU, actively?
(2) Do you determine edits like these to be in spirit of some part of WP:SOCK (I'm hinting at a specific bright-line but can't be more specific)? Notwithstanding technical violation/abidance of policies, do you think that obviously-conflicted users can behave in such a manner without disclosures?
Regards, ∯WBG converse 16:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
acknowledged?
If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics.∯WBG converse 18:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Ran0t0 ( talk) 16:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh ok, reviewing WP:MEDRS now - thanks. Ran0t0 ( talk) 02:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi James, I read through the leprosy article and tried to improve readability and fill a few gaps with the WHO clinical guideline. If you have a chance please let me know what you think and adjust as necessary. The Cochrane skin collaborators are having it ready by another expert and then I think we are closer to being ready to submitting it to WikiJournal of Medicine. Thanks! JenOttawa ( talk) 00:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
A reviewer has started the process on my nomination of Folate as a Good Article. I would appreciate your continuing to keep an eye on this effort as it proceeds. David notMD ( talk) 12:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Doc, This refers to following revision [ [4]]. I don't challenge your medical expertise, but I feel alternative viewpoints must be given a place in the article, especially when they claim this to be something as important as the path to find the very purpose of our being, the source and seed of the creation. I read somewhere that : A true sceptic is the one who sees his scepticism with scepticism. We must keep questioning the established truths, and allow discussions on alternative opinions. Request you to please go through the mentioned pages : Nadabindu Upanishad, Nāda yoga and Surat Shabd Yoga. What modern medicine considers a disease, has been mentioned in ancient oriental texts as an umbilical chord connecting human beings to the ultimate reality - "The Word" (mentioned in Christianity as : "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"- Logos (Christianity), in Hinduism as : Om).
I'm not sure whether I can convince you with this or not, I can only say that readers have the right to have knowledge of existence of an alternative explanation. Agreeing or disagreeing can be left to the reader. That's the spirit of Wikipedia. Thanks & Regards. -- Anamdas ( talk) 13:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Doc James:
Dear Doc james, I would like to know how to delete the template opened on the Alessio Bidoli page where a conflict is reported. The page appears to be written correctly. Can you tell me about any improvements? I would like to delete the box where you talk about the conflict. Do you give me some advice? Kind regards
Violinologo54 ( talk) 17:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Any comments as to this thread? Do you have any comments on the theme of this mail? ∯WBG converse 14:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
It distorts the feedback from the community in order to justify the predetermined outcome .... There is a long term issue that can only be solved by devising ways of sanctioning WMF staff who repeatedly step outside their remit as a facilitator of the various communities.∯WBG converse 13:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
Seven years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
81.35.37.251 (
talk)
18:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I have requested a 3rd opinion: Vitreology talk 01:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
An IP recently made this observation: [5], and I agreed and expanded upon it here: [6]. Here is what Katherine (WMF) replied: [7], see the last paragraph. I've taken particular notice of where she cites "a board-approved process", so it looks to me like the Board really needs to take the lead on it. And I think that some Board members (including Jimmy) are receptive to taking a look at it. I hope that you will take this issue up with the rest of the Board. Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Doc,
I wanted to chat with you to see if we can straighten some things out. I'm making a point of not filling this with policy and guideline shortcuts, because I'd just like to have a chat. I'd really like to come to an agreement and understanding which would negate the need to escalate a dispute about disruptive editing to ArbCom.
The community clearly understands and greatly appreciates your significant contributions to Wikipedia, as do I. You are obviously recognised as a senior leader in the community. However, there are ways to good ways to lead (ie, bringing the people with you), and there are bad ways to lead (ie, alienating/ostracising others).
You seem to be micromanaging a lot of articles that fall under the wikiproject (med) umbrella. You know, sometimes it's really helpful just to let people have some liberty about the way they do things. I'd like to see you lead by focusing much more on building morale, keeping everyone working together harmoniously, as a big happy family, and to take a 'bigger picture' perspective.
Please make suggestions, not reverts. The way you're reverting articles is not cool. It actually comes across as really rude, and most of the time it's just simply unnecessary. It's even worse if it's clear the OP put a lot of time and effort into the edit. If you really must - ie, if there is a genuinely important reason to - please just make the least drastic little change necessary in order to satisfy the policy/guideline. Don't revert everything just because of a trivial little technicality. And especially, don't revert so soon, ie, while the OP is still sitting back, admiring the hard work they've put into their contribution they've made. It's really just an unnecessary dick move doing this kind of stuff.
If you revert an article, please don't give a misleading edit summary. And don't wait until you're just outside of a 24h window to do your 3rd revert. Doing this makes it seem like you're trying to game the system. People closely following the article know exactly what has happened; no wool is being pulled over anyone's eyes. But more importantly, doing this kind of thing lessens respect from your peers (like me).
Please, Doc, just pull your socks up, will you? You're better than all this. You've achieved so much via Wikipedia. It's damn impressive. Don't get involved in stupid spats about nitty gritty trivial content on pages.
When you are wrong, please proactively acknowledge it. For instance, in my case on Pilocarpine, you were correct:
But don't relentlessly challenge people, particularly in their field of expertise, if the matter you're discussing really doesn't matter anyway. Doctors invest a hell of a lot of time in their training. You can relentlessly challenge their understanding of a topic within their field of expertise. You can pick and prod and engage in days and days of debate. And you might end up being correct. But don't forget, that you may win the battle but lose the war. That same doctor will probably be less likely to make the effort, and just pull the plug on contributing to wikipedia, which would be a shame, particularly when you're both playing on the same team. All editors, but particularly trained doctors, have a wealth of knowledge they can contribute to wikiproject (medicine).
I really want to be able to work together on articles.
You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
That's all I've got to say for now. I hope we can move forward constructively, come to a common understanding and treat this as just water under the bridge. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks mate. Vitreology talk 13:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 150 | ← | Archive 154 | Archive 155 | Archive 156 | Archive 157 | Archive 158 | → | Archive 160 |
(Selected comments copied from Jimbotalk, where they are about to get be removed by the 3-day archiving)
On 03 February 2006, it was reported to the WMF that our CAPTCHA system discriminates against blind people. See phabricator T6845. This appears to be a direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and leaves Wikipedia open to the possibility of a discrimination lawsuit.
In particular, National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. was a case where a major retailer, Target Corp., was sued because their web designers failed to design its website to enable persons with low or no vision to use it.
So why, after 13 years of inaction, do we not have a set of software requirements (including a testable definition of "done") and a schedule for solving this?
And no, I will not accept any proposed "solution" that lacks the name of an WMF employee who has been given the assignment of fixing this, a budget that says how much the WMF expects to spend on solving this, a deadline that say how long the WMF expects it to take to solve this, and a way for an independent third party to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met.
Regarding hiring someone else to fix this, I would very much like the idea to be given careful consideration rather than being dismissed out of hand. The WMF is great at running an encyclopedia. Nobody else, anywhere on earth, even comes close. However, running an encyclopedia does not magically confer the ability to create high-quality software, and the WMF has a pretty dismal track record in this area (Examples: Visual Editor, Flow, 13 years of failing to making this obvious but boring improvement to accommodate blind people.) I realize that this will anger some people, but why should it? Olympic-level athletes don't get angry when you tell them that their athletic ability does not magically confer the ability to repair automobiles or do astronomy.
Comments from the phabricator page:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
It's also not something that any team at the foundation is responsible for. This is likely not to be true. I realise the post was likely referring to teams on the technical side, but... if there is a mandate under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or subsequent legislation, then there is a team with responsibility at the WMF, its legal team (ping Interim General Counsel TSebro_(WMF)). There is also responsibility for legal compliance that goes to the CEO / ED (ping Katherine (WMF)) and ultimately, if management does not ensure compliance, to the Board (ping community trustees Doc James, Pundit and Raystorm). If putting into effect the excellent and appropriate 2006 non-discrimination principles stated by the Board or doing the right thing are not a sufficient motivators after such a long time, perhaps legal obligation / potential liability is a reason for action? I am assuming that everyone wants National Federation of the Blind v. WMF to remain a redlink, rather than becoming a sequel to National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp.? 13 years without solving an issue like this – and one the Chief Mediawiki Developer recognised as only needing people to do the necessary work (according to Guy's phabricator page quotes) – sounds indefensible. As Churchill would have said: "Action, this day." EdChem ( talk) 02:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, Jimbo and Doc James, will the board be asking our CEO why this remains unfixed some time in the near future? Or will we be back here having this same conversation at 14 years and 15 years? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I am having a bit of a quandary here.
I see "I'll try to get more educated on the topic, and hopefully give more information in the coming weeks" at [ https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T6845 ] but nothing since.
I am seeing the same thing at [ /info/en/?search=User_talk:Doc_James#13_years ]: "working on it" then nothing.
The cynic in me says that if I keep patently waiting nothing will happen and after a while I will be posting a "14 years" complaint, but it I start making noise about hearing nothing I will be embarrassed to discover that someone has been furiously working on this and watch as they change the Wikimedia software in a way that solves everything -- 15 minutes after I hit send on my complaint.
I am left with these known facts:
So I ask the community: how long is a reasonable time for me to patently wait without any updates before going back to complaining about WMF inaction? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi There, thanks for the edits on my clumsy edits re: metronidazole benzoate and the (I suspect) myth that post-gastric delivery is a problem.
I haven't got access to Kucers' myself, but am doing what I can to get access from colleagues.
I wonder is ref 13 on the metronidazole page /info/en/?search=Metronidazole should be removed entirely as it makes an assertion without evidence - and as I noted, in personal communication, the authors were unable to provide a source.
One said "maybe Martindale" but Martindale doesn't support it either.
What do you think?
Do you happen to have access to the monograph in Kucers' you could share? or give me references from Kucers'?
I have a suspicion that this is nothing other than a longstanding, clinically irrelevant myth that refuses to die, but I'm more than happy to be proved wrong!
Kind Regards
TheConfusion (
talk)
12:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
"This may require hydrolysis in the gastrointestinal tract" probably wants referencing to Martindale, which is here: https://about.medicinescomplete.com/publication/martindale-the-complete-drug-reference/ but not open access. Martindale appears to be the source of much of the "hydrolysed in the GI tract" narrative, but even they don't provide a supporting reference for the statement.
This paper( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1427741/pdf/brjclinpharm00190-0049.pdf) on benzoylmetronidazole's pharmacokinetics states "Benzoylmetronidazole has been formulated to hydrolyse in the gastrointestinal tract to release therapeutic doses of metronidazole over a period of several hours". I can't imagine that as little as 5 minutes spent in the stomach matters that much. TheConfusion ( talk) 15:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The submission was declined, updated and resubmitted. It's more than 10 weeks waiting a review, and I found out that it the title existed without content, prompting a re-creation with the title.
May you look at it, if it doesn't fly then leave it such, but if it does, re-instate it, then the other draft be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pshegs ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Doc James, I modified my edit and included a couple of references. Please note that no reliable medical sources state that temperatures measured at the axilla and tympanic membrane are comparable. According to every reliable medical source, temperatures taken at the tympanic membrane roughly equate to rectal temperatures. Many sources also include measurements at the temporal artery. 156.204.50.103 ( talk) 15:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee, having reviewed the evidence presented to them by WMF Trust & Safety and the community, have found Fram's one year ban imposed by WMF to have been disproportionate and have set it aside, while stripping him of administrator status pending a new Referral for Adminship vote for "a pattern of borderline harassment against multiple individuals, through hounding the individuals and excessively highlighting their failures."
Do you have an opinion about the structure of this case and this particular result? What will you do to insure that WMF respects the result? Carrite ( talk) 11:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@James:- Two questions for you, that we are nearing the end of this show:-
(1) JBHunley has since discovered evidence, that a certain user who is obviously conflicted with a current Board Trustee, has engaged in paid-editing for years without any disclosure and moreover, actively denied, when asked about it. What's your views about the overall optics of this specific situation, at a time when WMF is supposedly trying to fight UPE and thus enforce TOU, actively?
(2) Do you determine edits like these to be in spirit of some part of WP:SOCK (I'm hinting at a specific bright-line but can't be more specific)? Notwithstanding technical violation/abidance of policies, do you think that obviously-conflicted users can behave in such a manner without disclosures?
Regards, ∯WBG converse 16:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
acknowledged?
If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics.∯WBG converse 18:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Ran0t0 ( talk) 16:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh ok, reviewing WP:MEDRS now - thanks. Ran0t0 ( talk) 02:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi James, I read through the leprosy article and tried to improve readability and fill a few gaps with the WHO clinical guideline. If you have a chance please let me know what you think and adjust as necessary. The Cochrane skin collaborators are having it ready by another expert and then I think we are closer to being ready to submitting it to WikiJournal of Medicine. Thanks! JenOttawa ( talk) 00:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
A reviewer has started the process on my nomination of Folate as a Good Article. I would appreciate your continuing to keep an eye on this effort as it proceeds. David notMD ( talk) 12:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Doc, This refers to following revision [ [4]]. I don't challenge your medical expertise, but I feel alternative viewpoints must be given a place in the article, especially when they claim this to be something as important as the path to find the very purpose of our being, the source and seed of the creation. I read somewhere that : A true sceptic is the one who sees his scepticism with scepticism. We must keep questioning the established truths, and allow discussions on alternative opinions. Request you to please go through the mentioned pages : Nadabindu Upanishad, Nāda yoga and Surat Shabd Yoga. What modern medicine considers a disease, has been mentioned in ancient oriental texts as an umbilical chord connecting human beings to the ultimate reality - "The Word" (mentioned in Christianity as : "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"- Logos (Christianity), in Hinduism as : Om).
I'm not sure whether I can convince you with this or not, I can only say that readers have the right to have knowledge of existence of an alternative explanation. Agreeing or disagreeing can be left to the reader. That's the spirit of Wikipedia. Thanks & Regards. -- Anamdas ( talk) 13:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Doc James:
Dear Doc james, I would like to know how to delete the template opened on the Alessio Bidoli page where a conflict is reported. The page appears to be written correctly. Can you tell me about any improvements? I would like to delete the box where you talk about the conflict. Do you give me some advice? Kind regards
Violinologo54 ( talk) 17:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Any comments as to this thread? Do you have any comments on the theme of this mail? ∯WBG converse 14:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
It distorts the feedback from the community in order to justify the predetermined outcome .... There is a long term issue that can only be solved by devising ways of sanctioning WMF staff who repeatedly step outside their remit as a facilitator of the various communities.∯WBG converse 13:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
Seven years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
81.35.37.251 (
talk)
18:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I have requested a 3rd opinion: Vitreology talk 01:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
An IP recently made this observation: [5], and I agreed and expanded upon it here: [6]. Here is what Katherine (WMF) replied: [7], see the last paragraph. I've taken particular notice of where she cites "a board-approved process", so it looks to me like the Board really needs to take the lead on it. And I think that some Board members (including Jimmy) are receptive to taking a look at it. I hope that you will take this issue up with the rest of the Board. Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Doc,
I wanted to chat with you to see if we can straighten some things out. I'm making a point of not filling this with policy and guideline shortcuts, because I'd just like to have a chat. I'd really like to come to an agreement and understanding which would negate the need to escalate a dispute about disruptive editing to ArbCom.
The community clearly understands and greatly appreciates your significant contributions to Wikipedia, as do I. You are obviously recognised as a senior leader in the community. However, there are ways to good ways to lead (ie, bringing the people with you), and there are bad ways to lead (ie, alienating/ostracising others).
You seem to be micromanaging a lot of articles that fall under the wikiproject (med) umbrella. You know, sometimes it's really helpful just to let people have some liberty about the way they do things. I'd like to see you lead by focusing much more on building morale, keeping everyone working together harmoniously, as a big happy family, and to take a 'bigger picture' perspective.
Please make suggestions, not reverts. The way you're reverting articles is not cool. It actually comes across as really rude, and most of the time it's just simply unnecessary. It's even worse if it's clear the OP put a lot of time and effort into the edit. If you really must - ie, if there is a genuinely important reason to - please just make the least drastic little change necessary in order to satisfy the policy/guideline. Don't revert everything just because of a trivial little technicality. And especially, don't revert so soon, ie, while the OP is still sitting back, admiring the hard work they've put into their contribution they've made. It's really just an unnecessary dick move doing this kind of stuff.
If you revert an article, please don't give a misleading edit summary. And don't wait until you're just outside of a 24h window to do your 3rd revert. Doing this makes it seem like you're trying to game the system. People closely following the article know exactly what has happened; no wool is being pulled over anyone's eyes. But more importantly, doing this kind of thing lessens respect from your peers (like me).
Please, Doc, just pull your socks up, will you? You're better than all this. You've achieved so much via Wikipedia. It's damn impressive. Don't get involved in stupid spats about nitty gritty trivial content on pages.
When you are wrong, please proactively acknowledge it. For instance, in my case on Pilocarpine, you were correct:
But don't relentlessly challenge people, particularly in their field of expertise, if the matter you're discussing really doesn't matter anyway. Doctors invest a hell of a lot of time in their training. You can relentlessly challenge their understanding of a topic within their field of expertise. You can pick and prod and engage in days and days of debate. And you might end up being correct. But don't forget, that you may win the battle but lose the war. That same doctor will probably be less likely to make the effort, and just pull the plug on contributing to wikipedia, which would be a shame, particularly when you're both playing on the same team. All editors, but particularly trained doctors, have a wealth of knowledge they can contribute to wikiproject (medicine).
I really want to be able to work together on articles.
You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
That's all I've got to say for now. I hope we can move forward constructively, come to a common understanding and treat this as just water under the bridge. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks mate. Vitreology talk 13:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)