Two very difficult cases were heard in April, with one ongoing.Jytdog, a productive and controversial editor, was indefinitely banned on April 13. TheMedicine case opened on April 7. Two frequentSignpost contributors are involved. NoSignpost 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 wasindefinitely 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.
A long term dispute atWikiProject Medicine that came to a head over drug pricing information in articles was taken to ArbCom and thecase opened April 7.
On theevidence pageRexxS 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 includeDoc James, a long-time contributor toThe Signpost and a member of the WMF Board of Trustees.Bluerasberry, another long-time contributor toThe 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 theWorkshop phase, which ends May 5, many of the proposals appear to favor letting the editors solve the content dispute on their own. Aproposed decision is expected by May 12.
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]
SandyGeorgia (Talk)20:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]