Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence

Watchlists
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)
 * 203/watchlist...yes checking the watchlist is not time consuming (however the coronavirus pandemic and disease articles do take time as the situation evolves. Im very active at the pandemic article#4/5 and even more active on the talk page #3 which is often more time consuming trying to figure out what direction certain topics will go)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)...Please ping me, if anything
 * I have slowly managed to cut my watchlist to just a couple thousand pages. I have not had time to check every edit, or even half of them, for years.  (Consequently, if you want my attention at any page except WT:MED, please ping me.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you raising this question on an arbcase talk page? Would it not be better placed at WT:MED?  The answer to how many articles one has watchlisted and how much time it takes to process them is not only a complex thing that changes by the season, the editor, the breadth of the topic, the quality of the articles watched, and many other factors, but I am not understanding the relevance of this question on this page.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Because I'm going to endorse a lot of what you say about the behaviours editors display in this topic area. I'm specifically talking about IDHT, page ownership, and how these interact with using and misusing RfCs, and I will be able to link this to a previous arbitration case I started.  The hypothesis I'm testing is that these issues may be related to attention deficits, i.e. that editors are managing such a colossal number of pages that their volunteering time is spread very thin and, consequently, they edit in a tearing hurry.—S Marshall T/C 17:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. Yes, you have identified a key issue, and that means I can *not* have to deal with that part, which will save the arbs from having to read through two sets of the same evidence. I think that, rather than look at specific numbers of pages on watchlists, which is known to be excessive in this case, it would be more helpful for you to look at the speed of editing and the numbers of basic editing 101 errors (as well as medical errors) made due to speed of editing.  I don't think giving you our watchlist numbers for comparison would be helpful, because we all manage our watchlists differently.  When I go to the lake for the summer, I unwatch almost everything, keep a list, check 'em at the end of the summer.  When a student editing course takes on neuropsych topics, I can spend the entire semester/trimester dealing with just that course! When off-Wikipedia canvassing affects the entire autism suite, one can spend months dealing with only that suite.  Careful editing is what we want to see, and that is not reflected in number of pages watched.  WAID said above that she has thousands, but she doesn't make careless edits to them.  So, I suggest you hone in on the effect of the ownership problems, rather than the actual number of pages watched; we already know it's not possible for one editor to carefully take on the entire breadth of medical content, hence content suffers from errors.  RFCs that are hastily thrown up, poorly worded, and without discussion or attention to the details of the underlying conflict, worded in a way that doesn't address the underlying problems, quickly closed because of voting-rather-than discussing behavior and non-policy-based support, leaving the underlying problems unaddressed= content suffers.  I would advise also staying away from attention deficits; don't even go there.  Deal with the result, which is escalating conflict due to improper use of dispute resolution, and many of the rest of us running around fixing errors that result from hurried editing of too many topics. I also advise staying away from spelling mistakes, as I believe one party in this case has acknowledged somewhere a spelling disability (but I don't know where to find that), and considering the number of typos I make due to my aching arthritic fingers, I really don't get bugged about cleaning up spelling errors. Basic understanding of WP:V, source-to-text integrity, and not editing leads without syncing the change with text in the bodies of articles are other areas you might want to examine. There is so much to look at here that I am worried about having the world's longest evidence page, and am relieved that you have spotted this problem so I can set it aside. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I'm afraid you shouldn't rely on me to make your case. I'm here to make my case, which will involve a small number of diffs in a matter I was directly involved with, plus some thoughts on remedies. I will say that we need to devise measures that slow down these editors without reducing their ability to manage problem/COI actors in the topic area. It's a tricky balance. 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)
 * Darnitall,, I'm so sorry my post got in your way. But I do think that approaching this issue via number of pages watchlisted risked you taking a lot of your time on a factor that includes too many variables to be of any value.  Hope this helps, and sorry 'bout that.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:25, 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)
 * See, while I manage my watchlist apparently differently than others here; you are all giving a specific number and there is no such thing as a static number of articles I watch.For example. To have to deal with this arbcase, I just unwatched hundreds of Venezuelan articles, hundreds of FA process articles and pages, hundreds of medical articles, and a whole lot of other Wikipedia pages and processes I routinely follow. I'll re-add when/if I can again edit with the purpose of building quality content. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Word limits relaxed?
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)
 * Is there a particular reason my questions are ignored while the clerks answer other involved parties promptly? Since one party is well over 4,000 words now I think a explanation of why they can not be expected to at least trim their evidence to double what is usually allowed is called for.  We all have lives and jobs.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The sense that I got is that the arbs would like to try something new -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  23:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then I'll just chalk it up to an amazing coincidence :) AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:09, 17 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)
 * Arbcom does not use formal precedent when making decisions. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply but that wasn't what I asked. Don't worry about it though I have decided this is not worth the time.  Could you ping me if the Arbs decide to return to reasonable evidence lengths or at least give some idea of what parts of SG's entry is worth disputing.  Thanks in advance.AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Query for the clerks about evidence submissions
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? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , In general, unsupported evidence may be challenged by another editor and/or discounted by the Committee. If this is related to specific behavior on this case, (e.g. WP:ASPERSIONS), and you aren't comfortable speaking about it here – the best way forward would probably be to either email clerks-l@list.wikimedia.org, or the committee itself at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org.  C Thomas3   (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Cthomas3, no, not that at all. I am wanting to know if it is appropriate for me to contact Users Jorge Stolfi and D A Patriarche to let them know that they should supply diffs, or if that is something clerks regularly do, or if would be appropriate to just ping them to this discussion to remind them or if anyone can point them to the arb case guide.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , It's not something we regularly do, no. SQL Query me!  01:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyone can remind them to supply diffs and providing diffs is a fundamental to evidence provision really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all, when I find time, then, I shall post a link to the arb guide to their talk pages, with a reminder to supply diffs. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Done,  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Request extension for evidence
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.
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine

My reasons for this include the following:
 * 1) The case is an ongoing matter of years. I know of no urgency to resolve this now, nor of any harm in delaying by days.
 * 2) We are in the midst of COVID-19. This arbitration case concerns contributors to Wikipedia Medicine who are the ones to respond to pandemics. Our time is particularly occupied right now in these exceptional circumstances.

An extension would be helpful to participants in this case. Thank you for consideration.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  22:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , the timeline has been pushed back so that there is one extra week to add evidence. This means that the evidence page will now close 28 April 2020. The workshop closing date and proposed decision posting date have also been pushed back by a week. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 13:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Referred pages
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)
 * User:Colin/ExistingPrices
 * User:Colin/MSHData
 * User:Colin/PriceEdits
 * User:Colin/OsmosisEdits
 * I'm not sure why you feel they need to be moved versus referenced as they are? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 17:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * David, what happens in the future vis-a-vis arb archives, when evidence is stored in user space? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Change is not a big issue since you can link to a specific version of the page. Deletion is an issue for letting non-admins read the page, in theory. A note could be put on the talk page, I guess. Given that this will probably be a rare occurrence, if it ever happens, someone can request undeletion once it is noticed. isaacl (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Isaacl; that solves it for me, as I also need to build some lengthy evidence in my user space (if I can ever get the WMFLabs tools to cooperate). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Clerk query: How to best address responses
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):
 * There however was attempts by Colin and Sandy to remove this wording in 2019 without discussion.

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. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not clerking, so please don't take this as definitive, but my experience from multiple ArbCom cases is that discrepancies in evidence are usually brought to light and examined in the Workshop phase where analysis and criticism of evidence has traditionally taken place. Of course you can try to respond in your own Evidence section right now because of the relaxation of word limits, but it runs the risk of becoming a to-and-fro that swamps your evidence with "he said, she said". Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, RexxS; that is precisely my concern. I am already spending too many KB with responses. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm also not a clerk, but I agree with RexxS that this is best in the analysis of evidence section of the workshop. Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! (Although some things like ... claims of harassment ... must be addressed right away, IMO; at least that's my interpretation.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can enter analysis at the workshop right away, if you like. (I don't imagine anyone would think I'm a clerk.) isaacl (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ah ha, I had not thought of that. But I am finding that responding to false allegations is slowing me down on finishing my evidence, so I need to better prioritize. Thanks for the tips on how these pages and processes work.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can enter analysis at the workshop right away, if you like. (I don't imagine anyone would think I'm a clerk.) isaacl (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ah ha, I had not thought of that. But I am finding that responding to false allegations is slowing me down on finishing my evidence, so I need to better prioritize. Thanks for the tips on how these pages and processes work.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:24, 23 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 &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Guerillero; considering the length of time the problems have existed, and the breadth of the issues, I am aiming to do it in the most efficient way possible, so understanding how the pages works helps. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

11th hour
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? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that new evidence, per se, would be needed for that. The analysis of evidence section of the workshop page remains open throughout the workshop phase of the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Specifically, since several editors have introduced old history that I had decided not to expend length on, but now need to be fully explored. While I understand 11th hour evidence occurs in most cases, in this case, the old issues raised at the 11th hour are extensive. (Tryptofish, as you are one of the three presenting old evidence, leading to another editor to re-introduce old evidence which they had earlier removed because it was dated, do you think your response should be considered neutral?)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's say that you present new evidence about another editor's evidence: does that editor then get another day after that extra day to post rebuttal evidence to that? Added after edit conflicts: nobody here is entirely neutral. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Curious position. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Retract my request, as I have finished my evidence and will submit it shortly, with apologies for typos etc. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * An editor may analyze the evidence during the workshop phase which runs a week after evidence closes so it's not like there's no chance for response. Deadline spurs actions so it's unsurprising information came in towards the deadline. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I find it very troubling that my husband's cancer was introduced at the 11th hour, and was hoping that if conduct problems were addressed, content problems would eventually work themselves out, but I have now added that COI issue as it affects content to the evidence; I would have preferred not to, but here we are, at the 11th hour. I don't think that entire issue could be explored in Workshop, and it needed to be rebutted and fully addressed in evidence.  I can't imagine it would be helpful for the arbs to have to deal with part of my evidence on one page, and part on another.  I had also respected Tryptofish's request to not be involved-- made on your talk page-- but here we are on that as well.  So I have submitted more evidence than intended. NO more need for delay. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I did say about a month ago that I did not want to participate in this case. I changed my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Waiting until UTC midnight to close phase. Forgot about BST. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Stats
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. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems fairly typical behaviour the world over. You just have to hang out at places where student project editor issues come up to observe how common it is that you get a small number of edits from over a few weeks then suddenly a massive rush of edits and desperate editors a few days before the deadline. While okay, these are largely people at tertiary or sometimes secondary education, I think there's strong evidence it doesn't stop there e.g. [//pdfs.semanticscholar.org/69b2/a2796dd3ff0949daab915309c4f8d3b137d6.pdf]. Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's a good TED talk making the same point Doc James style. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Typo
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)
 * , done as its a obvious minor typo. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 11:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional editing during this arbitration

 * 21:00, 19 April 2020 Added cost summary to lead during evidence phase. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 10:08, 27 April 2020 Changed reference and pricing information during evidence phase. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 11:32, 30 April 2020 Addition of a Cost section during workshop phase. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I realize this is very late to add here: --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 20:17, 19 April 2020 Addition of a Cost section during evidence phase. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Medical editor lost during Medicine Arbitration case
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.


 * formerly known as User:Almaty and formerly as User:E.3.

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 Peer review/Digital media use and mental health and then FAC at 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)
 * Almaty does work in public health, and he is good faith. Almost too good faith. In common with thousands of the brightest young people around the world, Almaty feel an intense vocation to relief unnecessary pain, and at planetary scale. That's a heavy burden, which in certain cases results in the individual concerned to be permabanned on hundreds of different platforms and in dozens of languages. So I'm afraid you're quite wrong in most of your points. In Almaty's  case - despite them being one of the world's top young experts in infectious disease, their FA achievement & their extreme good faith - the admins who issued sanctions & cautions against them have done nothing wrong, as they were being disruptive. And it's not a bad outcome even for Almaty themselves - to achieve his high calling,  someone like Almaty needs to be tempered with many knockbacks in early life. Not only do you not understand Almaty in relation to the community, MEDS, or his higher destiny  -  you don't even have a grip on him in relation to yourself. E.g. My only interaction with Almaty was when they recently came to my user talk  .. Wrong: you've lectured them at length in other venues, e.g. here.   I'm sorry to have a go Colin, I'd put you in the top 0.1% of most valuable editors when you WP:FOC. But I count Almaty as a personal friend, and you trying to call more attention on them with your inaccurate framing, just after they became stressed enough to more or less "vanish", does seem rather unhelpful. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)