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

Jytdog party to case ?
, when you closed the Case request, Jytdog was listed as a party, but when you opened the Case, he was not. Considering that he will be able to appeal in a year, I emailed the arbs this morning with questions about how or whether to handle evidence pertaining to Jytdog. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Another query: must we post in our section on this page, or are threaded responses allowed? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings, sectioned discussions are only in force on the Proposed decision talk page. You are free to respond directly to others on this talk page or the Evidence talk page.  C Thomas3   (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cthomas3; then I shall change my section heading here, which now looks weird. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , hello. You do have a question for me over Jytdog being listed as a party? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (do you prefer to be pinged to this page, or should we assume you watchlist?), my question is for both. If you dropped it inadvertently, that is one thing, but if we are discouraged from presenting evidence that is another.  So I guess the question is for both you and the arbs, and I emailed the arb-list asking for best practice in this instance. Considering Jytdog can appeal in a year, but the evidence page here will already be quite lengthy, I wonder whether if it is best to leave out Jytdog portions.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (I am watching, although I don't mind whether you ping me or not) I am unsure if you are discouraged from adding evidence pertaining to Jytdog, but Jytdog was removed as a party on directions from the Arbitrators. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dreamy Jazz; will wait to hear from the arbs how I should handle that evidence portion. My concern is to leave evidence out wherever possible, in the interest of length. Unless the arbs say they will want my evidence a year from now … Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In the interests of brevity and since he's not a party, leave out such evidence. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, will do. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Bradv inactive
So, my second Arb101 question:  is listed above as "inactive", and yet he is a drafting arb. How does that work? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Bradv is currently inactive on arbitrator business; in the meantime, there are other drafting arbs if there's anything in particular that you need a drafting arb for right now. Best, Kevin ( alt of L235 · t · c) 21:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So, Kevin, does that mean you are saying he will return to active status in time to draft the case, but is temporarily inactive? Sorry, these are new matters for many of us. Do you prefer to be pinged to responses here?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wish I had more information for you. We'll let you know when we know more. For now, I don't think it particularly matters – even if we knew what the plans were, they could change; drafting arbs can change throughout the case at the discretion of the committee and are merely an administrative convenience. Best, Kevin ( alt of L235 · t · c) 21:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, that's enough to clear up my question. Thanks, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Really? EllenCT (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a question for me here, but I am unable to determine what it is. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Since when are proposed decision pages closed before workshop pages?
I tried to post this at the proposed decision page because I didn't notice the case until just an hour ago, but apparently that isn't allowed.

If it were up to me, we'd have the phone and fax numbers of corporations in their infoboxes, along with the emails for the CEO's "executive resolution department," and a graphical ticker chart for commodity prices, drugs or otherwise. Who here doesn't believe that in the cybernetic Wikidata future we won't have price ticker charts on every article which could possibly accommodate them? EllenCT (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The proposed decision talk page is intended only for discussing the Committee's proposed decision. There is not proposed decision in this case yet (the evidence phase hasn't closed yet, let alone the workshop) so your comments were very clearly off-topic there. If your suggestions were relevant to the case I would suggest you should add them to the workshop. However, the Arbitration Committee doesn't deal with content. Your opinion about WP:NOTDIRECTORY belongs, if anywhere, in a proposal at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not to see if your preferred change to that policy has consensus. Your second commment seems to be the opening for a forum-like discussion about your prediction for what will be in articles at some unspecified future time does not have a home on Wikipedia, but rather in a discussion forum about Wikipedia (it wouldn't be out of place in the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group as one example, there are probably others). Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Replying to WAID (on the now-closed evidence page)
, after reading the evidence, I think that the locus of this case is this question: "Who controls what our medical articles say?" I think that what the diffs show is that in this topic area, a small number of rather passionate and devoted editors exert tight control over a large number of articles. Your diffs (and mine) show that people quickly skim a discussion, offer a view, and then rush onto the next discussion, forgetting what they said in discussion within a few hours. Sandy's diffs show that people quickly skim a discussion, find a username they know and trust, agree with that person, and then rush on to the next discussion. Other diffs show that as soon as a discussion shows any signs of complexity, it's kicked off to RfC (my hypothesis: long, detailed discussions are too hard to follow with watchlists of that size so RfC is used to contain them). And I think the challenge for Arbcom is how to stop people editing without due care and attention. (Corollary: the correct sanctions are at the topic level not the editor level.)—S Marshall T/C 02:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * S Marshall Did you mean to post here rather than the actual workshop page? I think the talk page is for meta issues about the functioning of the Arbcom itself. -- Colin°Talk 08:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to post in the main workshop page because I'm not proposing anything actionable by Arbcom. If this is the wrong place, then where?—S Marshall T/C 09:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User:S Marshall, I think you could simplify your hypothesis to "long, detailed discussions are hard to follow" (at least for some folks). I believe that Nobody reads the directions, and it may well be that nobody reads anything, and it's likely that almost nobody reads anything lengthy with much care.
 * Speaking of reading things, I'm supposed to be reading something for work, and I've now procrastinated on that for over an hour, so it's time for work-me to clock in and get that done. It won't take long, once I get started, but getting started...  :-p  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Tryptofish - not a party?
Why is Tryptofish not a party? I see Sandy said to him (on Barkeep's talk) "I quite intentionally excluded you, respecting your stated desire to retire from Wikipedia." Tryptofish said "I do not intend to give evidence, comment on evidence, participate in or comment on the workshop, or otherwise participate in the case (if they accept it), unless somebody forces me to. But if I am forced to, I will not be intimidated." which was further evidence that Tryptofish should be left out and his retirement respected.

All of Tryptofish's evidence, all posted in the final 24 hours, is in areas where he is not commenting as a neutral observer, but is himself fully a party to events, and equally as responsible for those events as other parties. On the earlier Osmosis evidence, Tryptofish was involved, and his strong personal defence of James (separate from his content position on the videos) was itself a flashpoint. On the primary/initial focus of this arbcom, Drug pricing, Tryptofish has been involved since 2010 (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 4) -- longer than anyone else bar WhatamIdoing. Tryptofish more than fully participated at the ANI that I was dragged to: ignoring the price issue that caused the ANI but instead using it as a platform to tell the internet how awful I was. Tryptofish more than fully participated in the process to draft a Drug Price RFC, where he became increasingly frustrated. His retirement, half an hour after Barkeep said my complaints of Tryptofish's hostile behaviour towards me could be examined at AE, suggests someone who choose that moment to make himself scarce.

If Tryptofish had been a party, his recent hostility towards me would certainly have formed part of my evidence. The only reason this behaviour didn't earlier end up at AE was because Tryptofish "retired" (75 edits since...). Unlike Tryptofish, my evidence does not focus on digging up old slights and personal grievances. I chose to focus on the price issue and its history, the ongoing problems with James doing his own thing in conflict with the community, and some recent price-related behavioural problems, including admins edit warring while this very arbcom is going on.

I don't think Tryptofish's evidence should be viewed as that of an uninvolved observer. Whether Tryptofish intended to deceive us about his "retirement" and not intending to participate, or whether he has simply changed his mind, the effect is the same. He is able to throw rocks at others and yet avoided criticism of his own behaviour and edits and presumably cannot receive any sanction by Arbcom.

The only fair solution to this is that his entire evidence statement is inadmissible. Retired is retired. -- Colin°Talk 09:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * If any of the Arbs have any questions for me, I will be happy to try to answer them. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Colin, an editor posting a "retired" tag doesn't have any enforceable standing and doesn't really have any weight on evidence submission. Tryptofish, that you're not a party in this case does not preclude other editors from posting rebuttals to your evidence—that's not a "chilling effect", that's how evidence pages work. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 16:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that reply. I realize from it that I had said something in an unclear way, and I would like to clarify it. I agree with everything that you said here. When I referred on the evidence page to a chilling effect, I did not intend it to be in reference to rebutting anything I had presented. If it had simply been a rebuttal that sought to explain how my evidence was somehow mistaken ("Tryptofish says diff indicates xyz, but that diff actually meant something else."), I would not have raised the issue in that way at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting an extension of the workshop phase
In light of the current pandemic, and the possible benefit to everyone of additional proposals and constructive discussion, is it possible to extend the workshop phase? I realize it is late to request this, but I have personally not been able to dedicate any time to the workshop yet, and foresee having time in a few days. Carl Fredrik talk 04:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I support this request given that Maxim has been inactive on wiki since April 10 and Bradv removed himself (though maybe he's back?). If the Arbs are going to need more time for their proposed decision I think extending this workshop phase could be helpful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I also support Carl's request. I don't want anyone to feel left out of this stage, and I would find it personally convenient myself.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In the interest of a workable resolution (as opposed to a quick fix), I too support giving CFCF the time needed to respond. But, could we take precautions not to end up in the position we were in with the close of Evidence, with multiple editors weighing in at the 11th hour, resulting in responses having to be carried forward to the Workshop phase? If we are to extend (as I believe is fair, considering the pandemic), we should get an idea of when CFCF plans to post, and allow time for others to respond.  I am, at this point, uninterested in putting up any FoFs along the lines of "so-and-so appears to have added POV to articles based on COI," or "editor so-and-so has cast aspersions" or "editor such-and-so has failed to AGF" or "editor X has been disruptive", and the like, because I do not find that to be the path forward among a group of mostly good-faith editors where there has been an IDHT problem that got us to this point, and hopefully we now have editors listening to each other. This is why, with few exceptions, my proposed Remedies are worded as "reminded" and "instructed", etc. So, I hope to not be responding to 11th-hour FoF of that nature from CFCF.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I will bring this up with the arbs and I will enquirer about when they think a PD is going to get posted -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  21:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I should read out mailing list, the workshop has been pushed back to 11 May and the PD is due 19 May -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  21:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sandy with all due respect deadlines spur action. I frequently need a deadline to get me to finish something and I would hope we don't begrudge people who finish "on time" but at the last minute. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No begrudging at all; just putting out the heads up so we don't see complaints, such as when my responses to 11th-hour evidence got pushed to the Workshop page because the Evidence phase closed. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ; Heads up, and please advise: pandemic stay-at-home pending, but I plan to be traveling to my cabin for the first time of the season during the new planned close of the Workshop. It is a long trip, and I will not know until I get there if I have internet coverage yet, as service there is sporadic, and it's another long trip back to town to borrow Wifi from a business if needed. I would hope not to be in a position of not being able to respond to Workshop proposals, and hope CFCF will not defer til the last possible moment (or will at least let us know when he plans to post his proposals).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads up. Enjoy the cabin! I'm kinda envious of the idea of leaving the city after being trapped in 900 sq ft apartment in the DC area for the past month -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  22:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's actually (at this stage) a bit scary to be going to territory that does not have ICU beds ... but it's time! I hope you can get out soon, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd like to follow up on what Barkeep correctly said about not begrudging. First of all, I think Sandy should have every right to consideration in respect to being off the internet for a while. And I think it's entirely understandable that everyone here wants to be able to refute anything that they believe needs refuting. At the same time, so long as ArbCom has determined that a case page is open at the time, editors have the right to post when they are prepared to do so, and that goes for everyone equally. CFCF does not need to pre-announce what he will say, nor commit to any particular time, so long as it is "on time" per the rules. Barkeep's proposed finding about how the dispute has played out is spot-on about the ways that discussions can become exhausting, and I feel like that's been happening on these case pages as well. I know that Sandy feels very strongly about the need for her to have responded to the evidence that I posted, and she has every right to feel that way. On the other hand, I've found it really hard to keep responding to the responses, and at some point there has to be a finish line when the Arbs take active control of the case and decide on a final decision. Maybe CFCF will post near to May 11, and it is entirely possible that other editors will do so, too. Will each of them have to respond to the responses to what they post? At least in theory, all the evidence has been posted by now, and what remains in the workshop phase is to analyze the evidence and propose text for the decision. It's entirely appropriate to rebut evidence when necessary, but there is no need to rebut every analysis of that evidence. The Arbs know how to interpret evidence once the evidence is complete, and ultimately they will make their own decisions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbs still have not responded, I am not sure if the Arbs have watch listed this page, so as this requires somewhat urgent attention I am pinging them all now. Pretty much all of the Arbs said in their accept statements at the start of the case that they would allow for delays/extensions due to some of the participants being doctors who are caught up in the pandemic crisis. ,, , , , , , , , .-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  02:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , the case has been extended by a week. We discussed it on the mailing list today and there was no opposition, so Guerillero has updated the case page and made a note above. – bradv  🍁  02:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't understand the pings - the extension has already been granted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The arbs pushed everything back a week. Are you requesting a further extention? -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd add that while I never mind discussing arb business, a ping to the drafters would probably have been sufficient. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Always a good idea to check the casenav before pinging a whole bunch of people; we generally defer to the drafters, as they're the ones doing the heavy lifting. If you want a further extension, they'd probably be open to considering that. Katietalk 15:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It's the culture (but I may have already said that more than once :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Timing of close

 * It looks like I need to brush up on my calendar skills. I think I assumed that since /Evidence closed on a Tuesday, that the /Workshop would close on a Tuesday, too, and I didn't bother to look at the actual dates.  No big deal for me, I guess, since I'd decided to post "early" (or what I thought was a day before the deadline!), and I hope that nobody else made the same incorrect assumption.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah there was a bit of confusion there. We said we'd keep it open for another week, but then it ended up only being six days. I'm really reticent to open it back up again, so I hope you didn't have anything too crucial to add. If you just have general comments about other people's proposals feel free to make them here on this talk page - we'll read those too. – bradv  🍁  02:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I wondered last night why user:CFCF did not show up after the extension was primarily done for him.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  07:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I was mostly just unable to make it within the allotted time period. In the face of it, with a very high work-load, I could not prioritize setting aside the hours necessary to write a decent proposal. It may be that I was discouraged by SandyGeorgia's remarks above, which seem less directed at making time for discussion, and more at refuting anything I add. I honestly just feel sad when I think about Wikipedia right now. Carl Fredrik  talk 10:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , as I stated above (and I regret that you interpreted it the way you did), I believe it to be important that we hear your voice, and account for your workload during the pandemic. Since Tryptofish and DGG were allowed to put up proposals that were not based on evidence, I feel it fair that the arbs also allow you to state, in your own brief words as you have time, even if you don't provide diffs, what your proposed solutions are.  It is not at all clear to me to how the arbs can craft remedies for a case this complex (I don't know how they can write a remedy that will force James to slow down and engage, get Ozzie to stop wikifollowing James which allows James to not slow down, or get Tryptofish to send their AGF-ometer to the repair shop), but I do believe we should hear all voices, and regret that we haven't heard yours.  I appreciate your earlier expressions about some of your earlier postings and positions, and have appreciated how they have helped me see things from your perspective.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind offer, Brad, but, rightly or wrongly, I tend to share User:FeydHuxtable's view that the workshop phase is not critically important, and therefore it is unlikely that anything I would have added could have been crucial. I never intended to propose any remedies.
 * My main concern is finding out what editors will need to do to get even the most obvious errors (like writing develop ed when it should have been develop ing – an unfortunate typo that is still present in the lead of at least two articles) out of these articles. If ArbCom needs me to open an RFC over whether 'developed world' is a reasonably synonym for 'developing world', or if you need it removed with a particular edit summary and blink-text warnings on the talk page, then I can certainly do that, but I want to know with absolute, wikilawyer-proof certainty what it will take to get that kind of indefensible error out of an article, and I want it crystal-clear to everyone else that, once it's out, any claims that someone "didn't understand" that he couldn't just stick it back in later, even with a few changes, will be met with swift and certain blocks until "understanding" is achieved.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Closing thoughts
I have to say I find the 11th hour additions of proposed findings of fact or remedies is a bit distasteful. We've had two weeks to workshop this, preceded by two weeks of evidence, so the end phase should surely be discussing existing proposed remedies or findings, rather than ensuring one can fling new accusations or propose new restrictions once the party being discussed has gone to bed. That's not really cricket imo, and maybe something arbcom can look at in terms of advice to parties/participants in future.

It has upset me, though not surprised me, that some editors have used this case to conduct what amounts to an enormous personal attack, dirt digging through years of edits, cherry picking, quoting out of context, numerous undiffed/sourced allegations. I have tried, perhaps not entirely successfully, not to do that, and to focus on areas of editing or policy or advocacy conflict, or with very recent price-related misbehaviour by some admins.

For this reason, I have chosen not to engage with Tryptofish at all: there is IMO simply too much hostile grudge-bearing and rehashing of old grievances in what he has posted. There's too much "not just wrong, but on-another-planet level of wrong" in his analysis of events and editor motive, that the arbcom would double in length if I tried to dispute it all. Sandy did engage and for that Tryptofish turned his hostility on her, ultimately proposing an indef ban on medical content editing. I think arbcom should review Tryptofish's conduct during this case: clearly his "retirement" wasn't and should not be treated as such wrt sanctions.

In terms of last minute posts, I agree with a lot of what Barkeep49, WhatamIdoing, SandyGeorgia, S Marshall, and Paul August wrote, and am hugely disappointed by what DGG wrote and proposed. But we are out of time to discuss that. -- Colin°Talk 10:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I see where youre coming from on the 11th hour thing. On the other hand, the workshop phase typically seems to have little bearing on the final result. (At least that's my perception from reviewing or participating in close to 20 Arb cases over the years. Whats said in the evidence phase generally seems to be far more influential on the final decision.)


 * On the DGG take, Id probably be leaning that way myself, if it wasn't for the highly +ve impression SG made on me when I was trying learning the FA process back around 2009. It's near impossible to get the best out of so many highly strung creative types without having your own ego under control. Which is why I still don't doubt SG's good faith (or by exention yours), but this won't apply to DGG, or some of the other 'non involved' folk looking at this. Any way here's the wider context. With whats going on in the world right now, with health professionals not only contending with the obvious risks but also thousands of bizarre physical attacks from a tiny minority of the public there's huge levels of sympathy for frontline health workers. Perhaps due to this, perhaps due to other reasons, the way your side presented their case also seemed to have something of same "enormous personal attack, dirt digging through years of edits, cherry picking..." qualities that you decry for the Doc's crew.


 * It's difficult for even the very best to assess this case objectively. Speaking of which, your description of Trypto isnt remotely accurate. There's no chance of you persuading the Arbs to sanction them, so if it was only that I'd not bother saying anything. The issue is that leaving your one sided picture unchallenged could risk an excellent editor being motivated to permanently retire. As your buddy WAID has pointed out many times, over the years Trypto has many times supported your positions. The whole impetus of them getting involved here was a desire to add a little balance & fairness to the case, and I'm sure they didn't intend things to escalate in the way they have, which clearly wasn't their doing alone. I appreciate there's years of compounded history here – other wise Id have to say the way you've attacked Trypo isn't remotely befitting of a gentleman.


 * The outcome of this case in the Arbs hands now, and at this point attempts to sway things either way are likely to backfire . Like you say the time for the discussion has passed, & Im happy for you to delete my entire post here, as long as you strike or delete the nonsense you've wrote about Trypto. With all that said, I'm sincerely sorry you found the case upsetting. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * FeydHuxtable, can we please avoid "the way your side" or claiming my words were a "decry for the Doc's crew". Everyone in the case is an individual and stands or falls on their own merits and flaws; lets not start tarring folk with the same brush. I sincerely hope there will be no Covid19-sympathy bias here and do wonder if you are perhaps unaware of some individual's real-life roles, which they don't assert in every signature.
 * I am deeply concerned, on several levels, at your "The whole impetus of them getting involved here was a desire to add a little balance & fairness to the case". At one point RexxS claims Trypto is a neutral observer. You only have to look at the opening sentences of Tryptofish's statement at to know that's unlikely and to fully predict how he would conduct himself here. Tryptofish may have been aligned with me and others wrt some content issues, but he has most assuredly not been aligned wrt user conduct issues, which is what Arbcom is about.
 * Lastly, wrt the risk of permanent rather than claimed retirements, it was Tryptofish who proposed the indefinite ban of myself and Sandy from all medical content broadly construed. If that doesn't "risk" two "excellent editor"s being motivated to permanently retire, I don't really know what else would. I don't seriously think Tryptofish is in the slightest concerned what I think when contemplating his own "retirement". I think it best if we agree to disagree wrt Tryptofish. -- Colin°Talk 13:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * FeydHuxtable, when evidencing years-long trends that have never remitted, it is an unfortunate fact that one must dig up diffs that support ... years-long trends. Precisely for this reason, I recommended relaxation of limits on Evidence. One cannot state in evidence that "Editor X has been doing Y in a pattern that has existed for many years across many articles" without providing evidence for that.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes that's true. Here's hoping the considerable efforts in that regard are enough for the Arbs to craft something that will lead to more productive and enjoyable editing for all concerned. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am hoping for a significant post-mortem from the arbs on this case; as an experienced editor, I have still found this process to be horribly confusing. Examples for discussion: in one case closed in the last year, one subject has complained bitterly that they weren't heard, and the FoF were unfair. Yes, well, now I can see how that can happen: thank goodness I aborted my time at the cabin to deal with 11th-hour undiffed allegations. Did the relaxed word limits here help towards developing fair FoF, or hinder?  In another decades-old case, that had a longer evidence page than this one, an arb told me that my detailed background helped them understand the context and how the problems had developed, so I aimed for similar here.  That, of course, is not helped by traditional verbosity, but my aim was to provide context that the arbs could not appreciate in 1,000 words.  Did the detailed history help or hinder?  How are we supposed to handle this 11th-hour business?  It Has Been A Horrible Side Effect of the usual ArbCom unpleasantry.  Should Workshop open the same time as Evidence, or could there be a week lag (that is, open Workshop a week after Evidence).   What to do about this matter of parties who avoided scrutiny by "retiring"?  Also, I agree with Guerillero on shortening the sections to Arbs and Others, and there should also be a reminder to each editor to provide unique headings for their sections, since you cannot determine where to find a comment by reading a diff. And finally, my reasoning for asking that DGG recuse was borne out by the 11th hour postings; based on this experience, I worry what the consequences might be to parties in future cases if their recusal requests are unsucessful. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * One thought I've had is should Workshop in certain cases (like this) close in two phases. Essentially a "close of new ideas" and then a few extra days for discussion of whatever has been posted (including at the last minute) before it's closed overall. This need not even lengthen the overall case as that discussion could be happening as the arbs are drafting (and revising) their remedies. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Certainly it is very troubling that a sitting arb-- after multiple times demonstrating that they weren't reading the evidence or understanding the case-- would put up 11th-hour proposals based on a misunderstanding of the case filing, and even including undiffed, unevidenced allegations. I hope that DGG will take time to seriously read and understand WAID's explanation of how Bluerasberry generates his strings of words, taken out of context. (I encourage to post the statements that she was unable to make because of the date misunderstanding to this page, on the off chance that someone will read them. That an undiffed allegation that I make personal attacks is left on this page, and was put there at the 11th hour by a sitting arb, makes me wonder what this process is like for the average person.   I am sorry we did not get to hear from you, and sorry that you took my comment as if I only wanted to "refute", not "discuss", which is not the case (as we can see, I already do too much discussing :) ... but I hope this example of DGG putting up 11th-hour findings based on NO evidence (following on Tryptofish's proposals based on no evidence) demonstrates better to you what my actual concern was.  I regret that I ignored Blue's spurious list early on, as we are accustomed to seeing that method from him; it just never occurred to me that a sitting arb could take a string of words out of context as evidence. Since Tryptofish declared their biases, allegiances and beefs early on, I was less surprised that they put up a series of findings with a handwave towards evidence that wasn't, but I hope the arbs and clerks are looking seriously at how this process allows these last-minute spurious allegations to stand. What was more troubling to me at the 11th hour was that, after Tryptofish put up proposals based on a handwave towards evidence that ... wasn't ... then other people started repeating those same allegations as if they were based on evidence, concluding with DGG finding that I had filed the case, was trying to remove James from medical editing (when there is no such thing anywhere on the page), and I made personal attacks. And I agree that for these things to surface at the 11th hour is quite distasteful, although I don't know how the process can be fixed to adjust for that problem. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur that I took BlueRasberry's tone policing "evidence" for the weightless pseudo-scientific nonsense and fallacious argument it is regarded in the real world (read the wiki article), and was rather shocked to see DGG cite it as justification for sanctions. I also agree that WAID's explanation is excellent. And I see Tryptofish approved of DGG's non-evidence-based comments. Neutral observer my foot. -- Colin°Talk 13:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to note, I am now taking a short wikibreak. I'll look in on the DLB FAC but otherwise I need a rest from this. -- Colin°Talk 14:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Since I am back from the cabin now, I can follow Featured article candidates/Dementia with Lewy bodies/archive1; enjoy your time off. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

First, a thank you to FeydHuxtable for the kind words. Second, I somehow thought that the workshop phase had ended, and yet here we are a day later with another tendentious wall of text. This illustrates quite vividly what the entire long-term dispute has resulted from. I do hope that the Arbs will take note of this. And just imagine if this kind of thing keeps on happening at AE after the case is finally closed. ''You filed an AE about me, so I'm filing an AE about you. And here's a million reasons why.'' --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess one person's "tendentious wall of text" can be another person's "active engagement in discussion". I notice that the Dispute resolution policy seems to favor what it calls "sustained discussion" and warns against non-participation.  It doesn't seem to mention the value of brevity anywhere on the page.  Maybe it's not actually a goal?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If the Arbs have any questions for me, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Otherwise, maybe I'll be non-participating here until the PD. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Query WAID on more 11th hour postings
On late postings (which included Ozzie), I cannot find where Ozzie makes this claim; their evidence is so oddly formatted that I can't sort it and do not see where they are claiming I am claiming they are socking. Could someone isolate that bit for me? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * that's not what is posted on the 'workshop' page (it is now in Arbcom's hands), thank you (Behavior on this page 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.) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, SandyGeorgia. I'm looking at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence.  The formatting is indeed odd.  The first bit says "I often keep an eye on Doc James" because "he is an elite editor".  The next bit says "SandyGeorgia has been BLOCKED before".  It does not contain the whole story, of course, including the rejection of that block by the aforementioned "elite editor".  (I wrote that you accused "someone" of socking in 2007, not that you accused Ozzie of socking.  Ozzie was a new editor back then, and you'd probably never crossed paths.)  The last bit quotes you as saying "GA written by others at Wikiversity but attributed to Ozzie10aaaa on Wikipedia" and then claims that saying there's a license attribution problem "is an example of the above comment #2 personal attack/harassment".  (I assume that Ozzie, like many editors who don't have your experience, didn't understand that 'attributed to' is a keyword associated with copyright/license violations.)
 * That's it. There is nothing else in Ozzie10aaaa's section about you.  There is no other mention of you by Ozzie in evidence.
 * Ozzie, Copying within Wikipedia should help you figure out how to rectify the license attribution situation. I believe that the usual thing for ex post facto repairs to the licensing is to slap a template on the talk page that says something like "Revision #____ was copied from Wikiversity".  Wikipedia operates under WP:CC-BY-SA, so getting the attribution for any authors of copyrightable content is absolutely mandatory, with zero exceptions.  If you don't get it right, every single affected revision of the article (i.e., every single edit since you copied content back from Wikiversity) will have to be deleted.  This is true for all projects, so you might go back to the Wikiversity page and do the same.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WAID I would refer you to the prior answer given to the other editor, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Evolution and evolvability should be able to answer any question with regard to journal--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, WAID; was worried there was something else I needed to address. Ozzie:  Evo did correctly attribute when copying it initially to Wikiversity; you are the party who did not attribute when bringing it back.  And you are the party who needs to personally take advice like WAID's on board.  My evidence shows that the editors who are enabling James to avoid engaging collaborative discussion are a big problem, allowing the other problems to grow and fester, and the source of several of these problems began with Ozzie's appearance in 2015, to follow and "agree w/Doc James" on anything, anywhere, any time, so that James has no need to actually engage, and that has become a pattern leading to uncollaborative behaviors. (The other enabling of James in 2018 began with Tryptofish's vow to support James and oppose any effort to address these problems.)  Oddly, I believe the two most obvious solutions to the broader problems in evidence are to deal with the effects of these two editors, whose role appears minor, but is in fact, quite significant in contributing to the overall dynamic. My suggestion is that it might not serve Ozzie poorly to be instructed to go edit other areas of Wikipedia, where their general knowledge of editing might expand, while letting James actually engage the disputes he encounters.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ozzie, SandyGeorgia was not asking me about Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. SandyGeorgia was asking me about one of the Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop, in which Tryptofish claims that your Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence is somehow proof that she has "repeatedly personalized disputes and adopted a battlefield attitude, and frequently filibusters during discussions".  Your /Evidence page contributions says nothing about personalization, battlefields, or filibusters, and therefore I recommended (too late) to Tryptofish that he remove the claim that your /Evidence page contributions said anything like that.
 * It'd probably do no harm for Evo and evo to take a look at WikiJournal's process for copyrights over there, to make sure that everything's in order on all the pages, but that doesn't get you out of your obligation to do things correctly here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ...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. ...its in Arbcom's hands--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem with no response, Ozzie, but the question arose on this page because of 11th-hours posts which I did not understand. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@ Clerks
No big deal, and nobody acting in bad faith, but I see several comments on the workshop page today that were put in the wrong sections (ie, "party" responding in the "other editors" part, etc.). It's perfectly understandable, but may need a little cleaning up. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I wish we could go down to a Arbs and Others sections, tbh -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * My post "This simply isn't true..." is in the wrong box. And I think this is what Barkeep49 refers to when he writes "I think Colin's analysis below shows". If that is the case, can my text be moved and perhaps Barkeep's reference be adjusted if necessary. Or do we simply let it stay there? -- Colin°Talk 09:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

you are placing your posts in the wrong section (Comments by parties); could you please move them to Comments by others? Tahnks, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Belated reply to Colin, codification
, I'm sorry for misrepresenting your views. Would it be fair to characterize them as "Wikipedia should not have the sort of pricing information that displays medication prices in dollars and cents, at least where there are no secondary sources and calculating a dollar value requires arbitrary choices of assumptions and extrapolations of a small amount of non-representative or otherwise dodgy price data, which is usually the case"?

I did not in any way intend to deny or dismiss the problems you have painstakingly detailed. In fact, a draft of my post contained a summary of this point; quoting: "aforementioned lack of data makes it hard to provide any sort of representative summary (except in some cases, for instance vaccines where UNICEF buys half the world supply )... a medication may have a single, stable equilibrium price and only be used in one form and dosage regime, but this is rare; assumptions needed to produce a single price may be OR and beyond the expertise of most Wikipdedians[sic, this was a draft]." (update: UNICEF actually buys vaccines at multiple different prices depending on who it is going to, so a single price won't capture that) I cut all the arguments and counterarguments of that sort as I felt everyone here was already familiar with them, and I wanted to be succinct. I was surprised by your reply because it gave counterarguments to arguments I did not intend to make. I re-read my post a few times, trying to see where I gave the impression. I guess "made assumptions" might be considered praising with faint condemnation, but this seems too weak. The links to the various medications which I gave have a line or so giving oneish dollar-and-cents price(s), followed by much more extensive and varied content on pricing (e.g. "In countries with national health care systems (such as the UK and Canada), many of those national health services have restricted bevacizumab on the basis of cost-benefit calculations; in the U.K., for example, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has taken the position that bevacizumab should not be funded by the NHS because it costs nearly £21,000 per patient but only minimal benefit in many cancers.[3]", followed by detailed discussions of cost per QALY). I was making the point that some editors might find the former unacceptable and the latter acceptable, but I suppose you might have taken me to mean that I found both acceptable. A second hypothesis is that you read my post for condemnation of views and people opposed to yours, and failing to find it, concluded that I supported the view opposed to yours. I'd tend to neglect that possibility altogether, had I not previously seen hints of that in other interactions in this debate. Or maybe you are understandably just feeling so beleaguered in this debate that you tend to take statements as hostile in the absence of solid evidence to the contrary. A tendency to over-estimate hostility is common, especially in a text-only communications channel. So maybe I am assessing your response as a hostile response when it was nothing of the sort, and searching fro a non-existent thing I said that made your feel hostility. I truly did not intend hostility; I am sincerely impressed by the work you've put into this, and I think you have made some excellent points. I don't know you very well, which makes it harder to guess where I went wrong. I'm going with the links-misinterpretation theory for now. I should have been more clear, and I apologize.

I can't honestly apologize for all the ambiguity, because some of it was intentional. I'm trying to find common ground, by discussing only new things or things we may be able to agree on. I'm thus deliberately not raising any of the well-worn points of contention. It's not that I feel that the points of contention are unimportant, or don't need to be dealt with; I just feel that they are not an effective way forward from here. We tried that route and we're going nowhere. I want to try something different, get some agreement on things where we aren't in a rut, and then see if we have a better chance of resolving the remaining issues by coming at them from another direction, with some progress in related areas. If the consistent response is an implicit request that I return to one of the well-worn issues and take a side, I'm a bit out of ideas on how I can usefully contribute to this discussion.

It's not that I don't have views, and I am entirely willing to make definite statements where I think it might help. Here are my current positions, which may be subject to change without notice: I'm not entirely sure whether we are discussing Wikipedia content rules here or editor conflicts and behaviour. If it's editors, then suggesting that the content could be developed elsewhere is relevant, but I agree that it's not directly addressing the Wikipedia content guidance. Guidance on what we should be discussing, please? (bit late; this is obviously also an old draft I sat on and thought about too much) HLHJ (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * the status quo WP:NOTPRICE case-by-case interpretation has worked fine for me (and apparently for almost everyone else for most of Wikipedia's history). If we can resolve this conflict without further codification that's fine by me. I'm not sure if this is possible, but if the arbitrators can manage to restore peace with only editor-specific measures, kudos to them.
 * if codification is going to be our approach, a narrow consensus which only opposes the content type characterized in the first para of this post might work fine; I don't know.
 * a more comprehensive codification, such as I was suggesting, would be time-consuming and might cause more conflict than it resolves, as some have pointed out. I take their points; it should probably only be undertaken if necessary.
 * looking back, I can't spot any case of an editor arguing that there should never be any price-related content on Wikipedia at all, though I may have missed something. Colin was right to call me on the incorrect implication of my square brackets; I'd strike this if permitted.
 * while I have opinions on what sort of pricing information should and shouldn't be in Wikipedia, I'm not willing to edit war over it. I'll gladly accept any consensus we are at all likely to come up with. I mostly care about the medicine editors managing to get along and collaborate effectively (hence most of this overlong post beinb devoted to analyzing the sources of impressions of hostility).
 * I really don't want to spend time on this conflict unless I can be useful. I'm not sure I can.
 * HLHJ, I'm trying to have a wee break, but since you specifically pinged me in a section with my name on it, it is hard to refuse a response. Perhaps we have misunderstood each other a little and I wonder if you are over-analysing what was written somewhat (your own and mine), I can't, for example, see any hostility in your or my post directed at each other. But if its there, then I apologise.
 * I think it is a mistake to frame the debate into these two sides: ("It's very useful to have pricing information [on Wikipedia]" vs. "Wikipedia should not have [this sort of] pricing information"), or in short the pro and anti price groups. Hasn't stopped lots of people summarising it that way, though. For me, I'm not anti-price in principal at all. I don't think WAID is either. I think the whole thing can be summarised as those who think, wrt this topic, the first paragraph at WP:PSTS matters, and those who don't. Simple as that. That's a policy very specific to how Wikipedia gets written (vs. commercial publications or some future WMF project). And WP:ADVOCACY is not only my theory as to why some editors are inserting content that fails policy, and then editing warring and reverting others who disagree, but is in their very own words why they are doing it and encouraging others to do it (plenty diffs and quotes on the evidence/workshop pages). I've always believed this is a user-conduct issue, not a content issue. I think, once advocacy-editing is removed from the mix, and editors, perhaps with mediation, begin with respect for our core policies and for each other, I am hopeful the community can come to some agreement on how and when to present pricing information in drug articles. -- Colin°Talk 16:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Closing the talk page
Hi all. I have closed this talk page since the Workshop is well over. The PD is due on 19 May. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  19:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)