![]() | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Dreamy Jazz ( Talk) & Guerillero ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Bradv ( Talk) & David Fuchs ( Talk) & Maxim ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
I think that editors active on WP:MED are spread very thin indeed. May I ask: could participants in this case please tell us how many articles they have on their watchlists, and give us a sense of how much time they spend checking diffs on the articles they watch? Personally, I have 236 pages on my watchlist (excluding talk pages) and I can check every edit in a matter of a few minutes.— S Marshall T/ C 22:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The purpose of this talk page section was to gather evidence to inform my thoughts on remedies, but it now will not have that effect.— S Marshall T/ C 09:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
It looks like I have over 5,000 articles on my watchlist, not including deleted articles. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 19:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Why have the word limits been relaxed for this case? Having dealt with the verbiage involved in the rfc I am at a loss as to why ARBCOM is encouraging a lack of succient writing. AlmostFrancis ( talk) 01:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Another question. Should we expect arbs to understand arbitration history? I was planning on going through the history of the "fait accompli" ruling and show how it does not remotely resemble this dispute but if they are already aware of that I won't waste time. AlmostFrancis ( talk) 00:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
When editors submitting evidence don't supply diffs (probably because they aren't familiar with Arb cases), do the clerks notify them that they should, or is it appropriate for other parties to do that? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Done, [1] [2] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The current deadline for evidence is 21 April. I am writing to request as much extension as ArbCom routinely grants, which I hope is at least a week and perhaps longer.
I requested postponement in the original case request.
My reasons for this include the following:
An extension would be helpful to participants in this case. Thank you for consideration. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
What is the best way to deal with relevant pages of information that have been referred to by the recent drug RFC and/or will be referred to in this case. I am thinking of
The first three were referred to in the RFC. The latter two include a list of all relevant edits to a disputed area, as well as some commentary on those articles where disputes arose. Clearly I'm not expecting the arbs to read all that, but they and others may find the contents useful for quick reference or to search for an article or aid their own research. I think some concerns may be made that they are in user space and subject to change or deletion by that user. Any ideas? Could they be moved to a sub-page elsewhere? For example, the first two a sub-page of MEDMOS or WP:MED, and the latter two a sub-page of this case? Or would it be simpler just to protect them? Or something else? -- Colin° Talk 16:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
There are multiple instances in James' and Ian Furst's evidence where the diffs don't support the allegations. Here is but one sample (there is more) from James' current evidence (emphasis mine):
The first diff shows a removal by Colin, and the second diff shows a discussion started by Colin, with considerable discussion by many people. There is no diff backing any removal "without discussion", and none "by Sandy".
What does follow Colin's removal is an edit war with multiple edits by James and QuackGuru, resulting in protection by Barkeep49.
With this as but one example, my question is (in the interest of case length), do I continue to respond to these diffless accusations in my Response section, which adds to the page length, or is it more expedient to ask the clerks to look into both James' and Ian Furst's evidence as to whether diffs support the statements made? (Some of the other statements are quite more serious than this example.) I don't want to continue responding to these, and adding to the case length, if that is not the best approach; it seems to be furthering a conflict rather than helping resolve it, and I have already added three responses today. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. The theoretical best place to do this is in the analysis section of the workshop. However, there are no kb limits here and the deadlines have been pushed back if you would like to do the analysis here. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Within hours of the close of evidence, we have lengthy evidence posts from three new contributors (not unexpected in any arbcase, and certainly not for this case, considering the pandemic). Can an extra day be allowed for responses?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
19:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Retract my request, as I have finished my evidence and will submit it shortly, with apologies for typos etc. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Waiting until UTC midnight to close phase. Forgot about BST. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 23:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
More than one-third of the evidence dropped in during the last six hours. I don't know what that says, but I suspect it says ... something. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I wrote "He justifies the edit by citing the 2004 Pharmacology Style guide discussion." it should say "2014". Can someone fix it please. -- Colin° Talk 10:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I realize this is very late to add here: -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 18:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Evidence phase is over -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think this is relevant to the Arbitration case. If it isn't or procedurally too late, I don't mind if someone just closes it. If arbcom don't consider it, then I do hope someone considers some kind of analysis of what went wrong.
This user has had an account since 2007 but became seriously active in December 2018 when they started editing Problematic social media use. They then went on to edit Digital media use and mental health. While working on this they appear to be collaborating with others to help improve it and seek and take advice. They sought PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Digital media use and mental health and then FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Digital media use and mental health/archive1 where it was promoted in October 2019. In February 2020, they started editing the Covid19 articles and participating in talk page discussions. Some conflict arose which led to Bradv imposing a topic ban on 1 April. This was lifted in 21 April by Bradv. Conflict arose again, leading to a discussion at ANI. Almaty said he was being threatened with sanctions by RexxS, and in that discussion several contributors and admins commented that RexxS was WP:INVOLVED and therefore should not have done so. It seems to me that there was some confusion over what exactly Almaty did or was trying to do or was talking about on the article talk page that led to this threat. It isn't clear that some of the accusations against Almaty are fair and accurate. It does seem that at times Almaty has been stressed about editing on Wikipedia and took breaks or had breaks suggested. My only interaction with Almaty was when they recently came to my user talk page to ask for my prose opinion on the COVID-19 transmission section. They seemed like an editor who is here in good faith to help improve Wikipedia. And it looked like they were involved in public health in real life. There was clearly some conflict and problem behaviour that led to their topic ban, but how were they treated? I see quite a lot of hostile language from other editors directed towards Almaty and others. I also see extension of sanctions (e.g. the preprint sanction proposed by RexxS) as a sign of failure to develop a collaborative editing environment. Almaty was clearly capable of writing Wikipedia articles to Featured standard, and collaborating with others to do so. They don't strike me as the sort of crank or POV pushing editor that we are told WPMED is holding the "thin blue line" against. His apparent retirement doesn't strike me as a successful outcome. -- Colin° Talk 10:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
|
![]() | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Dreamy Jazz ( Talk) & Guerillero ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Bradv ( Talk) & David Fuchs ( Talk) & Maxim ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
I think that editors active on WP:MED are spread very thin indeed. May I ask: could participants in this case please tell us how many articles they have on their watchlists, and give us a sense of how much time they spend checking diffs on the articles they watch? Personally, I have 236 pages on my watchlist (excluding talk pages) and I can check every edit in a matter of a few minutes.— S Marshall T/ C 22:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The purpose of this talk page section was to gather evidence to inform my thoughts on remedies, but it now will not have that effect.— S Marshall T/ C 09:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
It looks like I have over 5,000 articles on my watchlist, not including deleted articles. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 19:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Why have the word limits been relaxed for this case? Having dealt with the verbiage involved in the rfc I am at a loss as to why ARBCOM is encouraging a lack of succient writing. AlmostFrancis ( talk) 01:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Another question. Should we expect arbs to understand arbitration history? I was planning on going through the history of the "fait accompli" ruling and show how it does not remotely resemble this dispute but if they are already aware of that I won't waste time. AlmostFrancis ( talk) 00:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
When editors submitting evidence don't supply diffs (probably because they aren't familiar with Arb cases), do the clerks notify them that they should, or is it appropriate for other parties to do that? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Done, [1] [2] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The current deadline for evidence is 21 April. I am writing to request as much extension as ArbCom routinely grants, which I hope is at least a week and perhaps longer.
I requested postponement in the original case request.
My reasons for this include the following:
An extension would be helpful to participants in this case. Thank you for consideration. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
What is the best way to deal with relevant pages of information that have been referred to by the recent drug RFC and/or will be referred to in this case. I am thinking of
The first three were referred to in the RFC. The latter two include a list of all relevant edits to a disputed area, as well as some commentary on those articles where disputes arose. Clearly I'm not expecting the arbs to read all that, but they and others may find the contents useful for quick reference or to search for an article or aid their own research. I think some concerns may be made that they are in user space and subject to change or deletion by that user. Any ideas? Could they be moved to a sub-page elsewhere? For example, the first two a sub-page of MEDMOS or WP:MED, and the latter two a sub-page of this case? Or would it be simpler just to protect them? Or something else? -- Colin° Talk 16:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
There are multiple instances in James' and Ian Furst's evidence where the diffs don't support the allegations. Here is but one sample (there is more) from James' current evidence (emphasis mine):
The first diff shows a removal by Colin, and the second diff shows a discussion started by Colin, with considerable discussion by many people. There is no diff backing any removal "without discussion", and none "by Sandy".
What does follow Colin's removal is an edit war with multiple edits by James and QuackGuru, resulting in protection by Barkeep49.
With this as but one example, my question is (in the interest of case length), do I continue to respond to these diffless accusations in my Response section, which adds to the page length, or is it more expedient to ask the clerks to look into both James' and Ian Furst's evidence as to whether diffs support the statements made? (Some of the other statements are quite more serious than this example.) I don't want to continue responding to these, and adding to the case length, if that is not the best approach; it seems to be furthering a conflict rather than helping resolve it, and I have already added three responses today. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. The theoretical best place to do this is in the analysis section of the workshop. However, there are no kb limits here and the deadlines have been pushed back if you would like to do the analysis here. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Within hours of the close of evidence, we have lengthy evidence posts from three new contributors (not unexpected in any arbcase, and certainly not for this case, considering the pandemic). Can an extra day be allowed for responses?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
19:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Retract my request, as I have finished my evidence and will submit it shortly, with apologies for typos etc. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Waiting until UTC midnight to close phase. Forgot about BST. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 23:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
More than one-third of the evidence dropped in during the last six hours. I don't know what that says, but I suspect it says ... something. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I wrote "He justifies the edit by citing the 2004 Pharmacology Style guide discussion." it should say "2014". Can someone fix it please. -- Colin° Talk 10:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I realize this is very late to add here: -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 18:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Evidence phase is over -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think this is relevant to the Arbitration case. If it isn't or procedurally too late, I don't mind if someone just closes it. If arbcom don't consider it, then I do hope someone considers some kind of analysis of what went wrong.
This user has had an account since 2007 but became seriously active in December 2018 when they started editing Problematic social media use. They then went on to edit Digital media use and mental health. While working on this they appear to be collaborating with others to help improve it and seek and take advice. They sought PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Digital media use and mental health and then FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Digital media use and mental health/archive1 where it was promoted in October 2019. In February 2020, they started editing the Covid19 articles and participating in talk page discussions. Some conflict arose which led to Bradv imposing a topic ban on 1 April. This was lifted in 21 April by Bradv. Conflict arose again, leading to a discussion at ANI. Almaty said he was being threatened with sanctions by RexxS, and in that discussion several contributors and admins commented that RexxS was WP:INVOLVED and therefore should not have done so. It seems to me that there was some confusion over what exactly Almaty did or was trying to do or was talking about on the article talk page that led to this threat. It isn't clear that some of the accusations against Almaty are fair and accurate. It does seem that at times Almaty has been stressed about editing on Wikipedia and took breaks or had breaks suggested. My only interaction with Almaty was when they recently came to my user talk page to ask for my prose opinion on the COVID-19 transmission section. They seemed like an editor who is here in good faith to help improve Wikipedia. And it looked like they were involved in public health in real life. There was clearly some conflict and problem behaviour that led to their topic ban, but how were they treated? I see quite a lot of hostile language from other editors directed towards Almaty and others. I also see extension of sanctions (e.g. the preprint sanction proposed by RexxS) as a sign of failure to develop a collaborative editing environment. Almaty was clearly capable of writing Wikipedia articles to Featured standard, and collaborating with others to do so. They don't strike me as the sort of crank or POV pushing editor that we are told WPMED is holding the "thin blue line" against. His apparent retirement doesn't strike me as a successful outcome. -- Colin° Talk 10:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
|