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

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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.

Jytdog party to case ?

Dreamy Jazz, when you closed the Case request[1], 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Another query: must we post in our section on this page, or are threaded responses allowed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Greetings SandyGeorgia, 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. CThomas³ (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Cthomas3; then I shall change my section heading here, which now looks weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, hello. You do have a question for me over Jytdog being listed as a party? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: (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. SandyGeorgia (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 | 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 … SandyGeorgia (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, David Fuchs, will do. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Bradv inactive

So, my second Arb101 question: Bradv is listed above as "inactive", and yet he is a drafting arb. How does that work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: 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? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: 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, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Since when are proposed decision pages closed before workshop pages?

This is not a general purpose noticeboard for discussing your opinion as to why a policy is wrong or how the project should look. Please take it to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not or the Village Pump if you feel you can get a consensus for your view. As Thryduulf states, "the proposed decision talk page is intended only for discussing the Committee's proposed decision" and is closed, per the banner that comes above the edit window and at the top of the page, until the proposed decision is posted. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)

@WhatamIdoing:, 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 Wikipedia: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# Pricing information) -- 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)