Bishonen placed full protection on User talk:Tarage, an action which was later reversed by Swarm. Later, Bishonen reinstated the full page protection without prior discussion. I brought the issue to Bishonen's talk page. As wheel warring is a serious abuse of administrator privileges, and Wheel warring usually results in an immediate request for arbitration, I am bringing this matter to the Arbitration Committee to see if any further actions are warranted.

I never suggested that an ArbCom case is warranted. Because wheel warring is serious, I am bringing this to ArbCom's attention. I fully expect any action, if needed, to be performed by motion, rather than a full case. feminist (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

@SilkTork: Swarm and I have had the discussion you request now.[1] Per that, I've reinstated the protection of Tarage's talkpage. Bishonen | talk 19:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Swarm

I would like to see RexxS’s personal attacks stricken, or their statement removed. Even if a case is unnecessary, any sort of personalized backlash against a user reporting a popular administrator to Arbcom is inappropriate, and I’m sure Bishonen would agree. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 14:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, admin accountability is important, and in theory, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask Arbcom to look at this case just because the admin got called out first, and chose to self-revert, rather than doubling down and going full-rogue. It’s asinine to suggest Feminist somehow did something wrong by reporting this here; I would normally join Feminist in pressing for a case after an admin wheel wars over an out-of-policy page protection. It’s not exactly an easy mistake to make. That said, I’m fine with letting it go as a one-off mistake that has been sufficiently resolved. I truly have nothing but respect for Bishonen and I’m sad to have to come into any sort of conflict with her at all. Working at RFPP, I’m aware that user request is sometimes misconstrued by editors and admins alike as being an uncontentious reason for userspace protection, and I just try to correct these misconceptions when they come up, and that’s all I was trying to do there. I don’t think anyone wants to see further escalation over this and if Feminist is comfortable withdrawing the case request I’m happy for us all to move on. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 16:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I get it, it’s not cool to challenge Bishonen, and I’m really not even trying to do that. I’m just trying to prevent Feminist from being demonized over this. According to the community, it’s not a reasonable request, and not normally a legitimate admin action. It appeared to me that Bishonen had simply made a mistake by granting it. If she has a nuanced justification for the page protection that she wants to share with me, my door’s always open. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 16:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some users are suggesting that user-requested user talk page protections are “not found” in policy, but that is incorrect, they are actually directly prohibited. If anyone thinks the policy should be changed to allow “reasonable requests”, they should go try to get it changed, but don’t bully me for enforcing the community’s consensus as written in policy. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 16:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: We have not discussed this issue at all yet. What you see at face value here is all there is. I overturned the full protection unilaterally as I assessed it to be directly prohibited by protection policy and thus in error. I did not anticipate it to be controversial, and I think it’s an exceedingly minor issue that we could easily resolve without any drama, or outside input, whatsoever. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 17:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomas.W: Reverting an admin action is not wheel warring, see WP:WHEEL. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 17:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: I have no issues with Bishonen whatsoever. I have nothing but respect and admiration for her. I just dropped her a message saying she’s free to reinstate the protection if she feels it’s the right thing to do. I don’t feel strongly about it. It’s definitely not worth all this drama. I’ll take responsibility for reverting and not discussing with her first, she just responded in kind, and fair enough. It’s all good, really, no harm done. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 17:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Feminist, why is a case needed? Your diff for "dispute resolution" suggests Bishonen agreed to undo their action. Isn't a claim for prior resolution, not just perfunctory? So, this is already resolved, right? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Popular admin? Bah, but what I am a bit bothered by is this filing was made, Feminist was asked questions and is currently editing, but has not come to discuss their case. So, I now ask feminist to withdraw this case, please? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, blanking and protecting was fine, it's also fine that it's not forever.

But clerks, I now ask you to get the closing of this done, since it has apparently been abandoned by the filer and almost everyone sees no reason to keep it going. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pudeo's reading seems stilted -- sure just requesting is not enough, but that leaves a whole host of 'request and . . .' rationales possible, presumably here, and protection from feeling harassed, or grave dancing, or etc, etc. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, to all, Silk Tork's concern is actually already anticipated by policy under WP:RAAA, Swarm should have, according to policy, talked to Bishonen before un-protecting. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hhkohh

User self request per edit summary and request Hhkohh (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think we need ArbCom because Bishonen has changed his mind and removed protection Hhkohh (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RexxS

This request is clearly vexatious, and a waste of time for all concerned. Tarage's talk page had a history of being vandalised and when he retired, he requested that it be left alone and protected: Talk page history. The most humane way to treat a fellow editor who retired after 14 years of contributions would be to respect such simple wishes, regardless of the soulless strictures indicated by a mechanical reading of the letter of Wikipedia:Protection policy. Swarm should be trouted for failure to show any empathy. 'Shonen has self-reverted her reinstatement of page protection, and nobody should imagine that there is any action against her that would in any way improve the encyclopedia. On the other hand, I'd really like to see Feminist warned about misuse of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, as they seem to display no clue about what is appropriate to bring here. --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: I insist that I made no personal attacks; and I stand by every word. If you think that a reasoned criticism of your action in reverting the page protection is a personal attack, I can only suggest that you stay away from admin actions that others may disagree with, otherwise you're going to be spending your entire wiki-career complaining about NPA. --RexxS (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman: It's very good advice for admins (and editors, for that matter) to communicate before reverting another's action. Nevertheless, instances such as this are fairly trivial and a failure to talk beforehand does no lasting damage. It just would not be fair to suggest admonishing Swarm for a single breach of best practice. That really ought to be reserved for those who habitually use second-mover advantage just as a means of enforcing their preferences, and Swarm is far more thoughtful than that. --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thomas.W

Bishonen made an honest mistake (as anyone should be allowed to make, since we, after all, are only human), her mistake was pointed out to her by Feminist (05:29UTC), and as soon as Bishonen got online again she posted a reply to Feminist on her talk page (09:27UTC) and self-reverted her protection (09:28UTC). Which ought to have been the end to it, but four hours later (13:23UTC) Feminist instead filed this complaint against Bishonen here, without even attempting to discuss it with her first. That's not how things should be done... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen's contributions (Special:Contributions/Bishonen) show that she made no edits between 22:10UTC 12 January and her reply to Feminist at 09:27UTC 13 January (which is consistent with living in Europe), and thus responded to Feminist's post (which was posted in the very wee hours of the morning European time), and immediately selfreverted, as soon as she got online again, i.e. as fast as humanly possible. What more can anyone ask? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What no-one here seems to have noticed, and I hadn't seen until checking it now, is that, according to the protection log, Bishonen protected Tarage's talk page on 1 December, because of the user request, protection that was then removed by Swarm on 28 December, so if Bishonen is guilty of wheel-warring (i.e. undoing another admin's actions), then so is Swarm. Especially since it seems to have been done without prior discussion, at least not on User talk:Bishonen, User talk:Swarm or User talk:Tarage, the pages that I checked... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm:@Bbb23: As the saying goes, you're never too old to learn new things. And to prove that I have learnt something new, I retract what I wrote above about Swarm being guilty of wheel-warring... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only one who deserves an admonishment in this case is IMHO the OP, who after having filed an ill conceived complaint goes AWOL, totally ignoring pings and questions, in spite of having edited here today, for a full hour-and-a-half after filing the complaint. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdChem

feminist, I asked you a question about this case more than 75 minutes ago. It relates to the same point that Thomas.W is making. You have been making edits, as has been noticed by Alanscottwalker, and so it is not unreasonable to ask that you engage with an ArbCom process that you initiated. Unless we are all missing something here, there is no chance that ArbCom will take a case where Bishonen followed an editor's request and undid her action as soon as she returned and saw your request. What are you trying to achieve here? EdChem (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

I'm sorry, Swarm, but what was not clear about this request? I don't really care whether Tarage's full reasoning is found in the policy--as Bishonen said this is a reasonable request, and I agree with RexxS's note about extending this courtesy as well. An Arbitration case over this kind of thing is completely overblown and unnecessary, and I'm glad Bishonen is finding other, more useful things to do on Wikipedia while we're here bickering. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Swarm, challenging a fellow editor/admin is fine. It's just that in this case I think Bish was right--certainly in the decision to protect. The revert--well, she reverted herself, no? And I'm not about to demonize anyone, but I do think that this is a tremendous waste of time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

Ridiculous case request for reasons better worded by Drmies and RexxS above than I could have written. Recommend OP withdraw this.--MONGO (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

Can't find the eyeroll emoji option in {{smiley}}. Which is odd, since it seems like, on Wikipedia, it would be the most appropriate emoji about 75% of the time. So I'll have to settle for the 20th century version. (◔_◔). --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. When I eventually get desysopped, it will probably be for wheel warring (and *not* self reverting when asked) in a situation not significantly different than this. Blanking and protecting was the correct, respectful thing to do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo

Protecting the user page was completely inappropriate and explicitly forbidden by WP:PROTECT: A user's request to have his or her own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale to protect the page. Also it was bad judgment because Tarage was topic banned from ANI for being rude, but now he's being given an WP:IAR courtesy for protecting his user page? In no way does he deserve that wish granted.

That said, there's probably no case as the protection was self-reverted after one instance of wheel-warring. This just needed to be said because some editors are saying the protection and wheel-warring was right, which is patently false. --Pudeo (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Leaky

Surely it is only fair to Bishonen to allow them to record their side of the story before closing this? Perhaps the relevant policy should be reviewed and updated. I am sure we do not want those who make these important decisions to brought here for doing what they believe to be right - thus creating drama. There is no rush to close this. Leaky Caldron 16:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of eager bad faith being shown towards the OP. Let's be clear, they have done nothing other than identify activity which is usually not acceptable in terms of locking talk pages and reverting and reinstating same without discussion. I for one want to see how the new Arbcom respond in terms of their understanding of what might actually have been done badly, by who and what recommendations they might have. I have to say on the whole, I am not surprised by the inert response so far. For me, the last person under scrutiny here is the OP. Leaky Caldron 23:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

This is silly. If a user leaves Wikipedia and requests the page be protected, that is a reasonable request. Not being able to find it in policy is silly as well, as WP:COMMONSENSE (aka: Ignore All Rules) applies. Nothing is damaged by protecting it, if they come back, it will be unprotected, it is a very small thing and to make such a fuss over it seems unnecessary. We have entirely too many people who don't seem to understand that we aren't bound to policy like slaves, and in fact, policy is nothing more than the reflection of what we are already doing. IAR isn't a free pass to do anything, but it certainly applies when nothing of value is damaged, like in this case, where either outcome would have been fine. I would hope Swarm and Bish can just talk it out and we all avoid a case over something so minor that 99.99% of editors wouldn't have noticed either state. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bbb23

@Thomas.W: The first undoing of another admin's action is not wheel warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

If there was ever a "Most Stupidest Arbcom cases of all time" then this would certainly be in the top 3!, Bish made an honest mistake and ~~upon it being pointed out to her~~ she immediately self reverted .... that is where all of this bullshittery should've ended!, Decline for all our sakes. –Davey2010^Talk 17:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck as didn't fully read User_talk:Bishonen#Reinstating_page_protection_on_User_talk:Tarage - My apologies Bishonen. –Davey2010^Talk 20:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

SilkTork, since neither administrator filed this case, it seems dubious to question them why a case has been filed in absence of discussion. As this is not a terribly pressing matter, and the original unprotected state had been restored once again, there was no urgency to try to forestall the filing of a case by a third party, of which they had no warning. isaacl (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

The circumstances surrounding this do not warrant an Arbcom case. Our policies are "developed by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia." Putting Bishonen or Swarm through the ringer for this de minimis rule bending would accomplish none of those things, and would surely have a net negative effect. Don't sweat the small stuff.- Mr X 🖋 19:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SN

No comment on the merits of the case (because there aren't any), but suggest a trout for the OP who, having dumped some dramaz on us on a single blow, has—how you say?—then just waltzed off. ——SerialNumber54129 19:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

Admins, please consult the original admin before undoing their action or at least try to do so. We should not enforce a second mover advantage. Undoing an admin action without attempting consultation should earn an admonishment. Jehochman ^Talk 20:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do this to avoid leading colleagues into trouble. It’s very upsetting to spend time carefully analyzing a situation, take some thoughtful action and then without even a word, to have that action reversed. Ask, unless it’s a true emergency. We don’t need a case to issue minor admonishments. People can see for themselves. Also, I don’t see it as clear wheel warring to repeat an action 40+ days later and a dozen days after a reversal. Circumstances change. Need could arise anew. As others have noted, this matter is unripened. First stop should always be direct discussion with the parties. Come here only after all lesser avenues have failed. Jehochman ^Talk 22:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

After posting this request, the filer edited for 90 minutes, and has not edited since (as of this post). When I posted my recent request, I told myself I wouldn't look at the page until the next day, to avoid the impulse to respond to every comment and get into a back-and-forth. Not logging in for 8 hours is hardly "going AWOL", and it's not fair to hold this against a user in an all-volunteer community. People do have lives offline, after all, and in a variety of time zones. Levivich (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note by olive

A non-case but this should be clarified for future situations? WP:PROTECT: "A user's request to have his or her own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale to protect the page." which I do not read as a user's page cannot be protected-a definitive and rigid position but that a protection should have other rational as well which could be very simple even to the sense an admin has of the user asking for protection, of that user's history and or service. There are some things we have to trust to the admin and deciding why to protect a user page is one of them. IMO of course. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Beyond My Ken

In what way does Feminist have standing to file this case request? Can any editor file a case request for any single instance of perceived malfeasance or misbehavior on the part of any administrator, even when the reported actions do not concern them? How do the facts of this case as presented, even if totally true, rise to the level of needing arbitration? Does not ArbCom generally only deal with actions which could lead to de-sysopping, and is a single instance of wheel-warring (if that is what it was) constitute grounds for removal of the bit? Is not a pattern of behavior required?

In other words, what the heck is behind the filing of this case request? On its face the filing appears to make no reasonable or logical sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist: "I never suggested that an ArbCom case is warranted." Then perhaps an e-mail to ArbCom, and not a case request, would have been a better idea? Why ever did you think that creating unnecessary drama would be helpful? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pldx1

Arbs are clearly wrong here since, per Protection Policy, user request is unambiguously not a legitimate use of user talk page protection. Arbs should have reasserted this general rule before any specific comment about the specific case. It would have been a great occasion to reassert that write-protection of their own talk page archives by several admins is a clear-cut abusive use of the admin's rights when done without any other reason that "Yes, me and myself, we can". Concerning the specific case of an user that was pointed out for abusive behavior on the usual drahma boards, this is surely not the right occasion for granting some "courtesy" to someone. Nevertheless, when looking at [User talk:Tarage&action=history], one can see there was an usual kind of reason to protect the page: i.e. protection against disruptive behavior by other people. Thus good decision, bad reasons given. An out-of-the-book case of stare decisis, for the involved admins, and for the Arbs themselves. Pldx1 (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PeterTheFourth

@'Feminist' I never suggested that an ArbCom case is warranted. Buddy I think 'Arbitration/Requests/Case' is the wrong place for this then huh! PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul August

@Swarm, Pudeo, and Others?: The (original) statement in WP:Protect: "A user's request to have his or her own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale to protect the page", means that a simple request is not sufficient reason, to grant the request. It does not mean that other reasons might not be sufficient. And it certainly does not mean that protection is forbidden (if it did, then that would mean a user could prohibit his user page from being protected simply be requesting it to be protected!) It simply means that there needs to be more than a mere request which, in the judgement of some admin, justifies protection. Paul August ☎ 13:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

I feel like this entire situation is already resolved given the many declines below which I endorse. I would like to say before it's archived that I think the case request is in good faith - where should an editor propose a discussion on possible administrator misconduct if not in a case request? But I agree with everyone that there's nothing to do here: Bishonen exercised proper admin discretion in protecting the page in the first place, and the dispute (if we want to call it that) between her and Swarm seems resolved. Everyone go add one reference to a random {{refimprove}}-tagged article right now, here's the list. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Bishonen: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Clerk note: A majority of active arbitrators have voted to decline this case request. Accordingly, it will be removed from this page when it is 48 hours old. Bradv🍁 16:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Decline. I'm not sure why a case was requested after Bishonen already undid the re-protection. The protections by Bishonen and the unprotection by Swarm all seem to be in good faith, and Bishonen realized the page should not have been re-protected and undid that action, so the issue looks resolved to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not clear how much, if any, discussion took place between Bishonen and Swarm, nor Bishonen's thinking when she restored the page protection. Communication is important, so I'd like to hear Bishonen's side of things before making any decision. SilkTork (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm. Thanks for that. So we're in a state where a page that one admin would like protected and another would like to be unprotected is not protected and neither of the admins have spoken to each other, and now we're at an arbcom request, and still there has been no discussion between the two admins as to what should be done with the page. Am I the only one who is thinking that you two folks should be discussing the matter together rather than us having this case request? If Bishonen is OK with the page being unprotected, and is OK with not protecting other user's talkpages on request, then perhaps we can close this and move on, but until she talks about this I'm in some doubt about what to make of this. Have you and Bishonen been in conflict previously? SilkTork (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm. If you and Bishonen are now in agreement then I see no need for this case. Decline. SilkTork (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline. There's no dispute for us to resolve. – Joe (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. As Bishonen explained prior to this request, they didn't realise that the second protection crossed the threshold of wheel-warring. Upon having this pointed out, Bishonen reversed the re-protection. The administrators have subsequently agreed that the page will be protected, and it now is. I treat this breach as a minor one necessitating no further action. AGK ■ 22:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - as above, this was not much of a "dispute", and has already been resolved, and no, we don't need any admonishments. As a general comment, never mind what's in which WP:WHATEVER page - if you come across an admin action you disagree with, and it's not an obvious mistake, and it's not time-sensitive, then surely the first thing to do is to ask about it, not reverse it. (And by "ask" I mean something like "Hi, I noticed you did [thing], why?" - if your question contains the word "per" and a nice blue WP:ALLCAPS link, then it's a statement with a question mark at the end :) Well, actually the zeroth thing to do is to to ask yourself, "Is this causing any problems? Does it matter at all?" and if the answer is no, feel free to move on. I am fully on board with liberal applications of IAR when it comes to minor back-office stuff, especially things that have minimal practical consequences but do help someone who's upset and wants to leave make a clean break. Also, maybe I'm the slowpoke here, but I don't think it's reasonable to complain about the filer being "unresponsive" because they were editing for a whole whopping ninety minutes after filing this but haven't posted here again in the ten hours since then. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, because this is already resolved, and wasn't so lengthy, intractable, or damaging that it requires after-the-fact examination. Keeping Chesterton's Fence in mind, can we please bring back asking about why things were done in a certain way before we undo them? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline By the letter of policy, fine, this is wheel warring. However, it happened over the course of weeks and over a topic that was squarely in IAR (helping a person who wanted to be left alone). The whole thing could have been sorted out with a little chat, both Swarm and Bishonen are articulate admins who get it and would have come to an agreement - oh look, they did. Worm^TT(talk) 10:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Digital media use and mental health

Initiated by E.3 (talk) at 15:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

E.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Treetear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bondegezou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by E.3

Repetitively stated that I break WP:MEDRS and articles nominated for deletion, or parts deleted without discussion due to basic linguistics. No MEDRS broken. NPOV no comments on RfC, now article nominated for deletion, when digital addict is far less compliant. I am concerned about cognitive bias or some kind of bias against my personal editing. digital media use and mental health has two strong keeps in its deletion discussion, but these two editors repetitively criticise and delete multiple edits and I am concerned about their behaviour. There is possible unconscious sexism or bias against me being an expert. Deletion is not a form of cleanup, if they are so concerned about my edits they should be focusing on improving, or suggesting.

@IvanVector: I'm trying really really hard to sort this out. But there is something going on. We can't have this content deleted. It will lead to deaths, in my expert opinion. I've tried really really hard. If its not the correct process, I'm still trying. I dont know what to do. I have asked quite literally anyone and everyone, posting in all noticeboards, RfCs, getting people to help with SYNTH, theres none. MEDRS is compliant, fully compliant if we consider it as a society and culture article. No one answers my questions. I dont understand. E.3 (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jechochman: I know. I know. I know. I am trying very hard to work it out, listing it of its relevant importance in all portals, asking questions, posting 2 RfCs, a NPOV and a reliable source noticeboard, asking for peer review, everything. Then its nominated for deletion by the same editors. Its just so odd because no one questions the problems at digital addict or the other places. It makes no sense to me. I ask for help every single day. But still not a single text addition, and now nominated for deletion again. I'm sorry if this was the wrong place to raise it but I thought this was the next step after RfC. E.3 (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: I disagree I ask for help all the time. ALL the time. I state I do not own the article all the time. I ask questions all the time. I post notices, requests for comment, since the start. I dont own it, I want and I need help. I get virtually none, no text additions, and two suggestions which I included. If I quote directly, I'm told its non free, so I reword it, then it becomes essay. Its neither. I need help. E.3 (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw this, how do it do it. This isn't fringe, its JAMA its the NIH its everyone in the world in quite literally all disciplines since early 2018. but we dont write about it, so I tried. several have lauded my efforts. I'm not trying to raise awareness, just write a neutral encyclopaedic article that others have been scared to do because of the controversy. I am doing it, on my own, and improving less compliant articles. Theres 8000 policies and I find them difficult to understand, but I have a good understanding of MEDRS and SYNTH. These editors do not in relation to this article, they dont even consider it, I have a very good rationale for every edit and how its MEDRS compliant. They dont tell me why its not. Why do they not want to delete digital addict just mine? E.3 (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Treetear

Statement by Bondegezou

Statement by Jehochman

Let me save everyone a bit of time. The filer seems to be acting in good faith and has attempted to seek feedback about content issues at a noticeboard and on the article talk page with an RfC. It would help if an experienced editor configured the RfC so that there would be more input. I'm not seeing any sort of failure of normal process. Therefore, this matter is not ripe for arbitration. I recommend the filer withdraw this request. I'll try to help with the RfC, but it would be useful if others took a look as well. Jehochman ^Talk 15:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.3 we take the accuracy of medical information very seriously because somebody could die if they get wrong information. However, we can't just take your word for it. There is no way to verify that you actually are an expert, and even though you may be, there can be other experts with differing opinions. We have to sort it out through discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 16:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: we excuse newcomers who err because they are unfamiliar. This is a process of explaining how Wikipedia works. After patient explanations, if the user still fails to understand, then the issue you raise becomes relevant. Jehochman ^Talk 16:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Galobtter

Well, I tried my best.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Observation by Ivanvector

While other steps in dispute resolution have been tried, and there are some concerns about the conduct of some editors involved, this is a content dispute and is not ripe for arbitration. Jehochman's comment is spot on, I'll also see if I can help with that RfC. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @E.3: when you want to "ping" another editor, be sure you're using curly brackets and not square brackets, like this: {{ping|E.3}}. Otherwise you're creating a wikilink to the ping disambiguation page and the other editor isn't notified. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Observation by Beyond My Ken

E.3 appears to be exhibiting strong ownership behavior concerning the article Digital media use and mental health. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman: Fair enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.3: (Note: Please post in your own section. Arbitration requests do not support threaded discussion. I moved you comment to your section.)

I think you misunderstand what "ownership" means on Wikipedia. Please read WP:OWN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.3: You also appear to misunderstand Wikipedia's purpose. We are not here to right great wrongs, or to prevent people from dying. Our function is to provide fair and accurate information which has been properly vetted and is agreed to by the consensus of subject experts. To assist in this we have various rules for what content can be included in articles. Theories and hypotheses which are outside the accepted core of information on that topic can be mentioned, if sourced properly, but it cannot be given undue weight, as it is considered to be on the fringes of that subject area, Your absolute belief in the importance of what you are writing is laudable, but not sufficient for its inclusion in the encyclopedia; all such decisions are made by a consensus of editors arrived at by discussion. Your apparent propensity for discarding any criticism of your work is not helpful, and does not contribute to arriving at a consensus.

I do not know who is more correct in your content dispute with other editors, but what is clear is that it is a content dispute, and that you should withdraw this request for arbitration (which will be rejected in any case), and return to discuss your disagreements with the other editors involved on the article talk page, and in the AfD discussion. There is no "Big Brother" who will reach out at your request and quash your opponents. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Digital media use and mental health: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Digital media use and mental health: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)