Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 174

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 170←Archive 172Archive 173Archive 174

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

[1]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

"Roundup® (herbicide)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Roundup® (herbicide) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Roundup® (herbicide) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 05:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Research Institute

Hello Doc James, I'm Dan and I have a COI with a Research Institute as an intern there (can discuss more if needed), and I'm sure you know which one. I help out with managing webpages for the institute, and I'd like to discuss the recent events that occurred. If this is not the correct forum to do this, please kindly delete this and I'll move to any forum you wish.

1. Briefly, a director at our institute did not make particularly appropriate comments about yourself and about Wikipedia in general. The director ignorantly requested you to remove pages, without any understanding of the importance of the page to our research, which is widely represented on Wikipedia already, particularly in Immunization during pregnancy, Nipple pain in breastfeeding, and other pages. No one at this Institute agrees with the actions of this director, and everyone agrees to a formal apology on our website.

2. As for the deletion - I noticed you mentioned a 2018 discussion in a category page called "Articles for Deletion" in which a discussion was started by Jytdog. That ultimately led to the deletion of a page secondary to problems with notability and being overly promotional. We don't know who created either page, but to the best of our knowledge, we do not believe that there was any connection between the two pages. The recently deleted page focused mainly on our COVID-19 research and the 2018/2019 Hacienda Investigation, both of which happened after the 2018 "AFD" discussion. Again, we don't know who create the later pages; it could have been patients or amateur enthusiasts.

3. As I stated, no one here agrees with the actions of the director, but the page is most likely notable enough for Wikipedia and would help contribute to making the Wikipedia encyclopedia more complete. It would be useful to researchers and students alike who are looking up names of various authors. The director has done a lot of useful research and had dozens of papers indexed by PubMed, Scopus, and many other reliable large academic databases. Many other researchers with similar notability on Wikipedia also have their own pages. Ultimately, it's up to the more experienced editors on Wikipedia to decide on whether these pages would be notable enough for Wikipedia.

Please let me know if you see a way forward. Obviously if you still believe there were any problems with notability or promotional-ism, I understand those would need to be addressed. Thank You. Danthemedguy22 (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Like you, I'm actually a trail runner myself. I noticed you have been showing interest in the Great Himalaya Trail, which one of my friends knows quite a lot about too! Danthemedguy22 (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is an article on Wikipedia about this individual[1] (deleted 2017*2, 2018, and 2019 with salting)[2](deleted 2018 with salting in 2019)[3](deleted 2022) so important for a research institute? There has been ongoing efforts by brand new accounts for years to create this article under multiple slight variations of this persons name (when the prior article was deleted and salted). The individual in question had claimed they new nothing about their Wikipedia article, yet were linking to it in their twitter profile. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh and the most recently deleted version contains a great deal of text similarity to the prior deleted versions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


Hi Doc James, thanks for getting back to me and being willing to discuss this.
I agree he hasn't been particularly nice or competent in some ways, as I'm just a guy at the institute who has even had some personal spats with the director; but my main point is that regardless of all these subjective things, from an objective perspective, he's still quite notable if you're looking at it from an unconnected researcher's perspective.
And actually, I'd be happy to draft a new copy of the page that includes some controversy, perhaps even "Interactions with Wikipedia" if you think that's appropriate. I could include accounts of controversy that he may not necessarily be particularly fond of, perhaps your social media interactions with him (since he doesn't and can't own the Wikipedia page - it's by and for the community rather than just for him). Another thing is that he does, or did view Wikipedia as a place where liberal opinions flourish and more conservative opinions are suppressed (put nicely).
Alternatively if you think a page for "Marchand Institute for Minimally Invasive Surgery" page is OK, I would be all right with that too. Perhaps it would pass Wikipedia:Notability if we're including the Hacienda incident, the various types surgeries, and the morcellation controversy, but it's up to the wiki community to decide.
Lastly, if you want to simply put the whole matter back up on the AFD discussion board that would be fine with me too.
Finally, here at the institute, none of us have any hard feelings and we all find your tireless work at Wikipedia to be really admirable.
Again, thank you for being willing to discuss this. Danthemedguy22 (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
You are 1) not an unconnected researcher 2) this is obviously not your first Wikipedia account 3) the wiki community did decide. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
1) I've been clear about my COI, and here's my ip address incase you doubted. (I'm not required to out my prev. account.) 2) Obviously - I am a Wikipedian like you. 3) The wiki community did not decide WP:GNG on a major COVID researcher in 2017. Dear James - you're probably the most respected editor/administrator in all of medical wikipedia. Wikipedian to wikipedian I'm just looking for the fair shake for my group here that anyone else would get. You had a twitter interaction and then deleted and salted a multi-year stable article (edited and not AfD'ed by dozens) about a covid researcher (work already organically in wikipedia,) then you whitewashed out involvement in the Hacienda crisis despite Today Show and Inside Edition coverage. I sense you're upset here or that you think me or my group has taken advantage of wikipedia. This is not the case. If you want an in-person apology or to discuss this by phone, maybe that would help. We're both familiar with ANI, there's absolutely no reason this needs to go the the cesspool. You're a reasonable guy who's made incredible contributions to the medical knowledge on this planet. I would really appreciate if you would take a step back and give our institute the fair shake anyone else would get. I'll be happy to make you a draft (if you'll allow me) that I'm sure you'll agree is appropriate. -Dan 184.176.128.231 (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Would advise that you read Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. If ANI wishes to restore your article they may. Not upset at all. This is just routine management of COI efforts and enforcing a prior deletion and salting discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Dear James, thank you for responding. Please give me a little respect as fellow Wikipedian that the idea that a deletion salting and whitewashing(Hacienda) of a clearly WP:GNG passing person is not "routine management of COI efforts." You would be very hard pressed to find another admin who thought that an AfD outcome justified actions more than 4 years later, even if nothing changed in the meantime. In addition, I can't find the AfD you're talking about but I am quite certain the resolution was not "Deleted and salt for life." In AfD articles are deleted everyday, and I have seen salting periods for six to twelve months if over-excited parties insist on continually recreating articles, but not forever. (Salting for punctuation or misnaming aside.) What you've done here can not apply to any "routine management," as I've never even seen ANI or even ArbCom decide that there should simply NOT be an article on that topic forever. I think if you asked the average admin they would say that the AfD should be repeated if a year has passed or significant worldly changes have occurred changing the topics notability. (Speedy deletion aside.) Our institute (my COI) is in no way related to any sockpuppetry or other practices against WP's rules. In retrospect, it looks like one or more of Marchand's patients was overly gratefully several years ago and really should have read WP:TOOSOON before they created this mess we now have on our hands. So from Wikipedian to Wikipedian would you please consider choosing another Wikipedian to get a third opinion on this to save us from having to escalate to ANI? -Dan 184.176.128.231 (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Found another one that was deleted in Jun 2019.[4] Most recent one was recreated in Nov 2019. Recreating user started with a redirect... and than letter came along and re added prior content from previous deletions. Made just enough edits to create the redirect. Than after adding the content to the article, the account went dead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


The Signpost: 30 September 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ "FDA updates Sotrovimab emergency use authorization". FDA. Retrieved 30 March 2022.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_174&oldid=1129402663"