Two difficult cases

Arbitration report

Two difficult cases

Two very difficult cases were heard in April, with one ongoing. Jytdog, a productive and controversial editor, was indefinitely banned on April 13. The Medicine case opened on April 7. Two frequent Signpost contributors are involved. No Signpost staffer is available to write this article who considers themselves to be unbiased about these cases. This writer has strong, and mixed, feelings on both cases, and will keep the descriptions short.

Jytdog

Jytdog was indefinitely banned on April 13 by a vote of 11 arbitrators to 1. He may appeal the ban in 12 months. The case was originally started two years ago and closed soon after when Jytdog resigned as an editor, stating that he would never return. After he expressed a desire to return as an editor in March, the case was reopened.

Much of the case revolved around Jytdog's efforts to fight paid or conflict-of-interest editing. A key aspect of the case involved his uninvited telephone contact with another editor. Strong evidence was presented that Jytdog repeatedly badgered other editors.

Medicine

A long term dispute at WikiProject Medicine that came to a head over drug pricing information in articles was taken to ArbCom and the case opened April 7.

On the evidence page RexxS states "the vast majority of parties to this case are respected, long-term editors who have made considerable contributions to the field of medicine on Wikipedia over many years. It should be taken as a given that every single party's foremost aim is to improve Wikipedia, although there exists a wide range of opinion on how that is best achieved."

The parties include Doc James, a long-time contributor to The Signpost and a member of the WMF Board of Trustees. Bluerasberry, another long-time contributor to The Signpost joins several other editors in favoring the inclusion of drug prices in medical article. Sandy Georgia and several other medical editors are concerned about multiple long-term trends affecting the Medicine Project.

At the evidence page, editors are roughly split, in the type of evidence they have presented, in whether it favors one side or the other in the dispute. In the Workshop phase, which ends May 5, many of the proposals appear to favor letting the editors solve the content dispute on their own. A proposed decision is expected by May 12.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

26 April 2020 (all comments)

News and notes

In the media

Discussion report

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

I hope everybody understands that this article was difficult for me to write. If you have any proposed corrections to make, please state your proposed wording here, and we'll see what can be done. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A long term dispute at WikiProject Medicine about including drug pricing

--> A long-term dispute involving many issues at Wikiproject Medicine, that erupted over drug pricing ...

Sandy Georgia and several other members of WikiProject Medicine are not generally in favor of including drug prices

... this is just not true; there are many instances where drug pricing is in accordance with WP:NOPRICE
--> Sandy Georgia and several other medical editors are concerned about multiple long-term trends affecting the Medicine Project.

At the evidence page, editors are roughly split, in the type of evidence they have presented, in whether it favors one side or the other in the dispute.

This is considerably off, as a) it divides us into "camps" (unhelpfully), and b) the dispute is NOT only about drug pricing, nor are the divisions only in that direction. I don't know how to suggest re-writing this.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Bri made a correction that I think handles your 1st point. I've included your suggested correct on your 2nd point. For your 3rd point, I think we'll pass for now. For just about every ArbCom case I've seen there are "divisions" or "camps" or "2 sides". It would be better for everybody if there weren't, but I think my wording reflects reality here. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"productive and controversial editor"-> "productive but controversial editor" ? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Jytdog remains blocked forever. I took issue with his interactions with another editor and we talked on Skype circa 2016-2017. It was a private call but I'll say that the editing community is better off without him. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that it's difficult to write about a case where you have strong personal feelings, but the summary of the Jytdog case in my opinion grossly underplays the reason for his ban, which is that the way he conducted his efforts to fight paid or conflict-of-interest editing. He repeatedly went digging for personal information about editors he suspected of having a conflict of interest and berated other editors he perceived as getting in his way over the course of several years. He had been banned or blocked for it multiple times and each time he was nice as pie, promising he would change his behaviour, only to do exactly the same thing a few weeks later. Yes, he was a productive editor, and yes, he almost certainly meant well, but his crusader mentality and his focus on "protecting" Wikipedia from edit (or editors) he deemed harmful at all costs, even at the cost of the community's fundamental values, made him a net negative to the project. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm for the moment an arb, i recused myself from this case as I thought I might instead want to give testimony--though in the end I decided not to. I can therefore give my personal opinion, that HJM's post above is more accurate than the summary. I think it would be fair to say, in particular, that based on published comments, most WPedians regarded J's manner of contact off-wiki as inexcusable. I doubt very much the committee expressed to any degree whatsoever a tolerance for undeclared paid editing, and I am disclosing no secrets in giving my impression that the committee is now at last seriously involved in trying to combat UPE. I have urged the committee to adopt this attitude since I first joined it, and my efforts--because they match the general feeling of the community-- have in that respect finally been successful. For this to actually produce results will, however , be a considerable struggle. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost is written by editors like you – join in!

Home

About