Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine/Editors/Archive 2018

Editorial board application of Roger Watson

 * . I also found an external site at . Although I don't see any significant history of wiki contribution, I see lots of useful expertise in academic publishing in general. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 17:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * . I think your expertise will be an added value. I would however strongly suggest to create a Wikimedia account for future use. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * . The addition of academic nursing expertise the the editorial board would be very useful. The board covers wiki skills well enough that I think broader open access or collaborative experience is now as useful as specific wiki experience. Agree that creating an account would be advisable. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 20:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Status: Accepted to board. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Ajay Balachandran
His LinkedIn and ResearchGate profiles can perhaps be helpful. Diptanshu&#128172; 19:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

-- I support you as an Associate Editor. Although you clearly have very valuable wiki experience, I find your academic track record, although valuable, not entirely convincing enough for election to the Board. We have had discussions about the number of full Editors and at this moment, it might seem better for the journal, as my personal opinion, to elect you as an Associate Editor with strong consideration for moving up to the Board at a later stage. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as Associate Editor. Drajay1976, I agree with Steven Fruitsmaak that your application is not yet convincing enough for board membership, but I think you will fit very well as as Associate Editor (more information about this position is found here). Please reply here or at my talk page if this position is all right with you. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course I am willing to volunteer as an Associate Editor. --Drajay1976 (discuss • contribs) 10:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)--Drajay1976 (discuss • contribs) 10:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Status: Accepted as Associate Editor. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Application of Theodoros Aslanidis

 * Question Useful medical and writing experience. I note that you've been involved with a couple of OA journals (e.g. Nova Explore Publications, Edorium Journals) that have had some controversy (e.g. on Beall's list). Could you comment on your position on the experiences of those journals, and what can be learnt from those experiences? T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 11:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * AnswerThank you for the question. Yet, not an easy one (let try and rephrase it): what can be learnt from any experience (good/bad, bitter/sweet,helpful/useless) in different publishing (good or not) practices? As in medical practice (and I believe in any kind of practice), you can learn by everyone: you can see the good and the bad practice and learn how to chose and what to chose. Depending on others guidelines, consensuses, lists, observations is always good (or not?). Yet, experience is living knowledge. It takes you a step further- it helps judge without preconceptions both the objects of the list/guide, the question under their construction, the background of those who made them, their possible conflicts of interest, the mechanism of thinking under every question posed (e.g. what is ethical or not ethical publishing?) Is this necessary for an author/scientist/researcher? Unfortunately,formal education about publishing process/practices around the world is something that is available to few researchers(independent of the field). My current personal opinion comes only after some near-missed bitter experiences.These experiences triggered my actively involvement-Since formal written communication  is part of  human science, then I should get clear inside idea about the means (publishing) that realize a form of it. Formal education/certification /diploma/theory about is certainly a way ; yet, not a feasible one to those who are not professionals  in the field. Thus, active involvement and "learning by doing" is the only way. Moreover, it provided me with the tools to examine the criteria for the good or ethical of ...any practice more clearly.And why not ...be involved into making new guidelines and creating new criteria in the future..Thaslan (discuss • contribs)


 * Oppose Thank you for your response, and I appreciate the time and though taken to answer my question. Your background is certainly interesting, however despite your answer, I still have misgivings over the number of potentially predatory publishers that you have worked with. With regret, I'm afraid that I can't support your application at this time. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 13:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Outcome: Not accepted as Associate editor. Thaslan, unfortunately I had to make this decision as per T.Shafee's comment above. Still, you are welcome to contribute to the journal in other ways (see link) - it just won't be as an official associate editor. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Keith Brain

 * - I hope that his experience would be of good utility for the journal. Diptanshu &#128172; 15:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Lots of Wikipedia experience, good science track record and editorial experience. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Highly valuable pharmacology knowledge. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 09:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Agreeing with comments above. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 11:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Status: Accepted to board. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 10:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Kai Zhang

 * (as currently presented) - Their ORCID profile is interesting but I do not think that there is sufficient information presented in the application to make a decision. In particular their non-research experience would be very relevant. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 13:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I cannot give a support with such a sparse presentation. What experiences do you think are valuable as a member of the board? Do you have any prior activity within a Wikimedia project? Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * After further question answering, I see a beneficial additional board member here, and I will proceed to accept him. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 05:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Kai: I have been involved in Asian, European and North American education and research system. I also have both academic and industry experience. I have published on several high impact journals and served as a reviewer for many journals. I have very good relation ship with many Asian, European and North American scientists in Biomedical research. I think I can supply more different views for the wikimedicine as one of broad members. user:Zkbb11
 * Support as Associate Editor - I think that they probably do not yet have the experience to be on the board, however their oncological knowledge would be very helpful as an associate editor. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 07:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral, (as currently presented) - You have several very high impact papers, but more is required. Please make a statement what value you expect to bring to the Editorial Board. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Although the information supplied on the application has been rather inadequate, his background can be estimated from the ORCId page. I feel that his background is quite different from that of the other members of the editorial board. I would consider the oncological knowledge to be helpful but more importantly I feel that addition of his diversity would enrich the board. I would also insist to re-opine after the response from Kai Dipta<b style="color:#00f">ns</b><b style="color:#60c">hu</b> &#128172; 07:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with points raised by Diptanshu and support. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I support the consensus of the discussion above. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 03:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Although there seems to be consensus in accepting Kai into the board, I would still want him to provide an answer to the following query:
 * Please make a statement what value you expect to bring to the Editorial Board. - <b style="color:#f00">D</b><b style="color:#f60">ip</b><b style="color:#090">ta</b><b style="color:#00f">ns</b><b style="color:#60c">hu</b> &#128172; 04:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Kai: I could bring my experience in cancer biology and cell biology to the Editorial Board. Besides, I could contribute the diversity for the Editorial Board.


 * Status: Accepted to board. Welcome! Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 05:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Eric A. Youngstrom
Status: Accepted to board. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 14:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - Extensive experience in both wiki contribution and journal activity. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - Their philosophy on Wikipedia aligns very well with WikiJournals. Highly knowledgeable and connected in their field, with plenty of editorial experience. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 23:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * per above two opinions/rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 12:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * per above rationales. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - <b style="color:#f00">D</b><b style="color:#f60">ip</b><b style="color:#090">ta</b><b style="color:#00f">ns</b><b style="color:#60c">hu</b> &#128172; 07:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Result
Diptanshu has now resigned from the board of WikiJournal of Medicine and the WikiJournal Council. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 16:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Background
I am proposing for the removal of Diptanshu Das (User:Diptanshu Das) from the WikiJournal of Medicine (WJM) editorial board member position under ARTICLE VI section 3.

There are several reasons why I am making this proposal. It began when there was a disagreement arising from Wikimania, in which there was disagreement over tasks involved, workload and points of view. In the off-wiki mailing list, he began criticizing and making insulting statements towards an editor from WikiJournal of Humanities (WJH), not realizing that his comments were actually pointed towards a member from WJM who shares the same first name. Understanding that his emails were rude, nonetheless he sent it anyways because it was "meant to be" and that his response "was meant to be firm and harsh". At that time I already expressed my concerns that his conduct is unbecoming of an editorial board member and others believed that his tone in the emails were inappropriate. He defended his actions due to lack of time. As a result of Diptanshu's harassment, both individuals involved in the name mix-up quit their respective boards over his actions.

The editors-in-chief from WJM, WJH and WikiJournal of Science (WJS) issued a formal warning to Diptanshu for his behaviour. However, on today, he requested the individuals he harassed to apologize to him for getting him into the mess in the first place. He also expressed that he considered removing himself from the board but decided against it. It demonstrated his battleground mentality and failure to drop the stick. His incivility and lack of assuming good faith leads me to believe that he has already violated the Code of conduct's Harassment and discrimination policy numerous times. He is a net-negative for the group and since it is unlikely for him to remove himself from the board, I am putting forth a motion to call for his removal due to lack of confidence.  OhanaUnited  Talk page  04:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Voting procedure
This vote includes removal from the WikiJournal Council (Eligibility for voting) and the Editorial board of WikiJMed (Eligibility for voting). Even if not fulfilling any of these, your comment is still appreciated. The Bylaws do not specify a given duration that this vote needs to take, but if we are clearly in agreement, I think it is reasonable to have it going for a total of 4 days as per Section 6. General decisions, that is, until August 13. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Vote

 * Support removal. The EiCs are currently writing a joint response, however I shall comment here in my personal capacity. With regret, I think that the actions of Diptanshu through this incident have been professionally inappropriate and detrimental to the community. Editor productivity is separate to civility and it is civility which is the issue here. I don't doubt his good intentions towards the journals. However his behaviour towards the participants of those journals unacceptably insult those participants and damage those journals. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 05:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support removal. Diptanshu has been doubling down on his disruptive behaviour multiple times now. Instead of asking one of the aforementioned editors who left to come back, he wrote her another harassing e-mail where he called her behaviour "stupid" and took pains to point out that he himself would have acted in a more constructive way, were he in this situation. The e-mail where he demanded apologies from the two editors who left has already been mentioned; it contained a numerous list of largely spurious reasons why they should apologize to him. On one issue, Diptanshu tried to make the whole board jump to a hoop - each of one who did not respond to a call of action of his would be proof of discrimination against him! Diptanshu does not seem to be aware of what it was he did wrong, and also seems to be have expected things to go right back to normal directly after he wrote his apology, requiring no behaviour change on his part. I, too, do not doubt his good intentions towards the journals, see no issue with his productivity, and would like to thank him for the work he has put into this. But this lack of awareness, and the indications that he is either unwilling or unable to change his behaviour, is a strong indication that the inappropriate behaviour will continue, causing significant damage to the project. Markus Pössel (discuss • contribs) 06:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support removal. I too have no doubts about Diptanshu's own beneficial productivity in journal-related tasks, but unfortunately his recent tone and behavior is having a negative impact on the willingness of others to contribute, which creates a negative effect overall, besides from the personal harm it causes. Nevertheless, I appreciate Diptanshu's past contributions, and I may support a future reapplication from him if he admits to his wrong-doing and apologizes, without further accusations or doubling down on his behavior. I will now notify other WikiJMed members about this vote. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support removal with all the conditions stated by Mikael Häggström: Diptanshu has been an extremely productive member of this community, and a reapplication after a cooling off period should be considered--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support temporary suspension I totally agree that Diptanshu is too blunt which is unacceptable, but at the same time I feel he should not be removed but suspended for certain period of time. --G10sinha (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support removal I support removal of Diptanshu though I wish to recognise the value of his contributions to the journal community. His recent unacceptable statements and communications have been harmful to others and he has only responded with reluctant and diluted apologies, deflecting blame on others. I therefore do not support a cooling off period as it does not remedy or relieve the situation. Notwithstanding these issues with I may support a future reapplication from Diptanshu if he recognises the inappropriateness of these actions, apologises unconditionally to the relevant members, and undertakes to refrain from similar behaviour in future. Fransplace (discuss • contribs) 21:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * comment I realize I don't have a vote due to this being the boards issue, however its possible he may have had a 'personal issue' he may have been dealing w/ which may have affected his judgment here....--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 12:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * comment I want to express my appreciation for the time and energy you have taken in responding. I know this takes time out of your busy schedules, but like me, you spoke up for good reason. As seen here, in situations of harassment, bystanders are important. I was the first person to speak up about Diptanshu’s inappropriate response in the email chain, but certainly not the only one.
 * I choose to not vote in this situation, but I felt it was appropriate to comment.


 * Diptanshu, I am not responsible for your inappropriate behavior. I just called you out on it. Prior contributions do not matter when it comes to inappropriate behavior. It always is a net negative for the team. Jackiekoerner (discuss • contribs) 15:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear Jackie, you are definitely not responsible for my inappropriate behaviour. I have already admitted that my reaction was disproportionate and misplaced. But I do not consider the ground that triggered me, to be invalid. Any discussion on that part got shadowed by the intensity of people's reactions. You did not assume good faith, something that somebody else pointed out to be a requisite. I would suggest you to take a softer and friendlier tone when you wish some change to happen. I would also insist you to aspire for positive change by setting the best alternative path to follow. I would urge you to realise that not being satisfied with any positive developments that you get from others is actually counter-productive. I would urge you to try to become a better person than you are today. I would also insist you to improve upon your sense of humility, if you could.


 * Regarding my value in a team, my team-mates would be in the best position to comment upon. I do not think that we have teamed up, and so I do not consider you eligible to comment. But a humble suggestion to you, if you ever participate in a team, your team-mates will have attributes that are good and attributes that are bad. Try to augment the good and try to redirect the bad to alternatives that are less hazardous than the existing bad. That is how to make value addition to a team. I would hope that over time you come to realise it. Believe me that there is enough good around that if augmented will hardly leave you a scope to stay bothered about the bad. I can only hope the best for you. As regards me, rest assured that I will leave the world a better place than I was born in. <b style="color:#f00">D</b><b style="color:#f60">ip</b><b style="color:#090">ta</b><b style="color:#00f">ns</b><b style="color:#60c">hu</b> &#128172; 18:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear Jackie, prior contributions do not matter. Future contributions do. Not everyone can foresee the future. Not everyone can steer the future toward a yet better one. If possible, try to grow that capacity and you will change the future for good. <b style="color:#f00">D</b><b style="color:#f60">ip</b><b style="color:#090">ta</b><b style="color:#00f">ns</b><b style="color:#60c">hu</b> &#128172; 19:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement of Diptanshu Das
I have now removed myself based on the unanimous vote so far. However, I do consider the entire proposal to be misplaced and the most of the voters (barring a few) not to have the right to participate. Nevertheless, they enjoy the benefit of doubt since the eligibility criteria have not been defined. I would insist the EiC to take care of the matter.

I also consider the vote misplaced since it does not provide slightest ease to the people who were at pain. Since the vote does not decide my status on the WikiJournal Council, something that was the concerning matter. Furthermore, even removal from the WikiJournal Council does not resolve anything because it does not bar me from participating in WikiJournal related affairs as a participant need not be a member of the Council to be able to contribute. When I said that the position does not matter to me, this is what I meant. I do not need a position to contribute to what I love. So, I would urge the EiCs to clearly define the principles including that of discrimination. You can feel free to ban me if you think that helps. <b style="color:#f00">D</b><b style="color:#f60">ip</b><b style="color:#090">ta</b><b style="color:#00f">ns</b><b style="color:#60c">hu</b> &#128172; 17:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Discrimination
I still consider my allegation of discrimination to be valid. I would need a clear proof that discrimination has not occurred. I do feel that discrimination has clearly occurred. If people can find time to participate in a substanceless debate on apparently ethical issues and let the discussion and trudge on, the only explanation I have for non-participation in productive and constructive activities is discriminatory behaviour. I would keep WikiJMed members out of the list. I would also leave out the relatively new members of the other groups who are otherwise not very active. I would leave out others who have communicated directly with me or have expressed lack of availability of time. But I hold my accusation valid against all the other members of the boards of WikiJSci and WikiJSci who have shown recent activity.

I would also need them to prove on-wiki that discrimination has not occurred. This is a serious allegation and I think that it would rather be hard to prove that such a thing has not occurred. <b style="color:#f00">D</b><b style="color:#f60">ip</b><b style="color:#090">ta</b><b style="color:#00f">ns</b><b style="color:#60c">hu</b> &#128172; 17:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not that difficult. If someone issues a call for action, people will decide whether or not to participate based on their own priorities, and on their own available time. If someone behaves inappropriately, and then issues a call for action, people might in addition consider whether they really want to cooperate directly with that person, given their recent inappropriate behaviour. Even that latter reasoning would not be discrimination, in the sense that it would not be prejudicial or unjust treatment based on a person's membership in a certain category of human beings. It is contributors to a volunteer project freely deciding with whom to cooperate, based on that person's concrete behaviour.


 * As for why people with little time to begin with have joined this discussion of an ethical issue: I can only speak for myself, but suspect that the case is similar for the others who joined in. If I see someone being harassed, I feel obligated to help. This is a stronger obligation than the free decision to spend or not spend time on a volunteer project; it would be ethically wrong not to help, so I do it, even though I really would rather spend the time on something else. When you sent around your demands for apologies to the two editors who left because of your previous actions, that was such a case. Markus Pössel (discuss • contribs) 20:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This statement well expresses my own position. Thank you. --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 13:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Markus Pössel, I beg to disagree. Firstly, you (or most of the others) did not know me prior to my communication. So, you are not expected to have any idea about what sort of person I am. Naturally, you all had no reason to have an apathy toward me. But I found something that was unsupportable, and reacted. My reaction was not soft and unfortunately disproportionate. That was my mistake that I admitted subsequently. But that does not render the basis of my reaction invalid. In fact, all through the series of emails there was not a single criticism whether my reaction had any basis and whether that basis needed to be dealt with. Did you or the others pick up the offensive tone in my reaction? You did not. Had you done so you would have reacted outright. Jackie did and as a matter of fact, it was a false alarm. It was this false alarm that got everyone started. The false alarm was about the supposed harassment and discrimination. Now these are serious allegations and it is no wonder that it made everybody discriminate me from others. I clarified that that there was no harassment or discrimination and provided the supporting points and also apologised mentioning that my reaction was misplaced and disproportionate. But people awoke on the alarm of the harassment word and started noting things after they became awake and not after my actions. They could not pick up the sincerity in my tone and they could not bother to look into the basis. Meanwhile, although my apology was genuine, I also held the basis of my reaction to be valid, and so what came along was not something equivalent to unconditional surrender. So, people assumed that my subsequent actions were unacceptable as well. Jackie had raised a false alarm (although duly) and she could surely show humility by apologising, but she did not. Kai (Alexis)'s initial action followed by her further reaction were the basis of my getting offended, but she too did not apologise for having offending me. I did not ask for these earlier, but when I had already been labelled a villian, I had no inhibition to ask for them. Once you get a label, its hard to undo and a strange bias sets in. There was something fundamentally wrong that was going on and I protested. My protest and apology did not seem to go hand in hand and people were aware of only half the facts. So, things worsened further and nobody assumed good faith. In fact, when Andrew lodged this proposal, he did not even have his facts correct.


 * Coming to the issue of discrimination, I feel that had I not been labelled a menace, people would have acted otherwise. And, as explained, it was not exclusively due to my actions. Anyway, people voluntarily choose whom to show solidarity to. Were the whites in solidarity with the blacks (sometime back in the past)? They were not because they considered the blacks to be uncivil menace. This is exactly the label I had. We now refer to this as racial discrimination because the discrimination is based on racism. Here too discrimination exists, although for a different cause. Indeed whether people choose to work along is a matter of choice, but the basis here amounts to discrimination. People do not like to work along others who are accused or identified as guilty irrespective of their actual guilt. That is exactly the case here and I belong to that minority. Please prove me wrong. <b style="color:#f00">D</b><b style="color:#f60">ip</b><b style="color:#090">ta</b><b style="color:#00f">ns</b><b style="color:#60c">hu</b> &#128172; 10:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Dr. Subas Chandra Rout

 * as Associate Editor, with possible reconsideration as a full Editor after handling an article submission. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * as Associate Editor as above. Diverse experience with multiple wikis. It would also be good to have surgical knowledge represented. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 13:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Question - Although not a prerequisite, could you comment on whether you have any experience with medical publishing (as author, editor or reviewer). 13:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * strongly as Editorial Board Member. In addition to his medical qualifications [MBBS, MS (Orthopedics) and D. Ortho], his degree in law [LLB] is an add-on that can benefit the board. His administrative role as Joint Director in the Department of Health and Family Welfare of Govt. of Odisha (India) coupled with his position as a member of the Board of Directors at Wiki Project Med Foundation is a bonus. His field (orthopedics and surgery) are still unrepresented on the board of WikiJMed. He has held an academic position. He is a prolific Wikipedian having created and developed more than 1000 medical articles in Odiya single-handedly. I feel that he can definitely add value to the board at WikiJMed. So far, the utilization of Associate Editors with respect to WikiJMed has been rather limited and therefore I would not insist on his inclusion in that role. <b style="color:#f00">D</b><b style="color:#f60">ip</b><b style="color:#090">ta</b><b style="color:#00f">ns</b><b style="color:#60c">hu</b> &#128172; 15:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For sure. Doc James (discuss • contribs) 02:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Result: Accepted as Associate Editor. Dr. Subas Chandra Rout has excellent qualifications, yet additional associate editors is a top priority of the journal for the time being. If we see beneficial work in this regard, I definitely see an advancement to become an editorial board member in the future. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 15:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Discrimination (reopened)
This is in continuation to my allegation of discrimination which was archived vide this edit without the issue being addressed. A sensitive issue like discrimination not being addressed by the EiCs does not shine bright on the history of WikiJournals. The EiCs have chosen to be politically correct rather than neutral and righteous. The EiCs, assumably naively, have been more concerned by what the accused might think since they constitue a majority on one or more boards, and because without them the journals might suffer. With a naive intention they have also not taken care of evidence being removed vide this edit and worse still they have silently removed the remnant clue evidence by removing the addendum vide this edit, being naively ignorant that removal of evidence from an ongoing investigation case may amount to a serious offence. They have also not developed a policy on the matter which triggered the removal of evidence (I have independently opened a discussion for the same at Talk:WikiJournal User Group - feel free to participate).

Where I had left off last time, Markus Pössel had simply affirmed to my allegation just without accepting the label that the same amounted to discrimination. I had ignored the fact that my post once again did not have any respondents. But as one of the members accused of discrimination just provided a fresh evidence of discrimination in their response through this post (as a part of this thread), I felt obliged to reopen the section. To me, using a label (a parameter independent from and not related to the task being performed) to segregate people and prevent them from contributing freely amounts to discrimination. I hope to get an appropriate resolution from the EiCs without which I would need to escalate my concerns to the foundation, something which I would not like to do. <b style="color:#f00">D</b><b style="color:#f60">ip</b><b style="color:#090">ta</b><b style="color:#00f">ns</b><b style="color:#60c">hu</b> &#128172; 18:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Another member accused of discrimination has presented yet another instance of discriminatory behavior vide this response to an apparently naive message like this. There was a clear learning message in my mail which the accused chose to ignore but he chose to highlight all that he thought to be offensive. He also chose to ignore that another accused member in their earlier response to the same thread might have had some lacunae and that I was trying to help them overcome them with a positive intent. An ideal way to address his issue should have been something like 'No Diptanshu, I do not think that ego was involved in JK's suggestion and you should not assume it.' but instead, his response was in a manner that gets others charged up easily. He assumed that I wanted to send people into a 'rabbit hole' "again" just because I was accused of the same in an earlier independent discussion (the fundamental basis of discrimination against me). In fact, he took the pains to link to the previous communication which landed me in the minority group which I allege to be discriminated against. He did not assume good faith on me due to the same reason. Ironically, in the earlier thread wherein I erred on one parameter, it was the lack of good faith in the responses from certain members that got others charged up and ironically enough I got the blame for the 'lack of good faith'. I am apprehensive that unless the EiCs act, this discriminatory behavior will go on. <b style="color:#f00">D</b><b style="color:#f60">ip</b><b style="color:#090">ta</b><b style="color:#00f">ns</b><b style="color:#60c">hu</b> &#128172; 23:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The EiCs are preparing a joint statement on this. In the meantime, I will comment in my personal capacity here. I have read back through the communications log since the initial email that was flagged as inappropriate conduct towards another editor (20 Jul), the incident at WikiMania conference (26 July), and your email to that editor (2 Aug). My assessment is that the reason that you were criticised is not due to political correctness or discrimination because of who you are. It was because of your actions - specifically comments to another editor that were deliberately hostile. Other editorial board members stated that they did not consider them acceptable and your subsequent responses indicated that you did think that they were acceptable. Since that disagreement was not able to be resolved, continued engagement with it is unlikely to be productive. There is no evidence that the resulting protracted argument was due to discrimination rather than editors' disagreement with your conduct. Although you are no longer on the WikiJMed editorial board, like everyone you are free to make suggestions for the project on the discussion pages, but not to email those involved. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 12:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thomas, there is a catch that you have possibly missed. For the moment forget the context and contents of the vote for my removal. I erred. I was removed. End of the deal. This should have ended the matter and should have let us start with a clean slate. It should have left me as an ordinary participant (non-board member) but should not have limited my capacity to convey value. In other words, my words (that come after the milestone of removal) should have been taken neutrally and in assumption of good faith and the only consideration should have been whether they add value to the running of the WikiJournals. But that did not seem so when JK responded. MP's or AL's responses (can be found in the follow up emails in the previously mentioned thread) were in fact more hostile. I am certain that any further words from my side would have been greeted with even more hostility from the same members irrespective of whether the contents of my words were valid. I am quite certain that it would have been otherwise had they (my words) come from somebody else. So, this is differential treatment amounting to discrimination. Please note that any 'evidence' or rather 'piece of data' is subject to interpretation and does not come 'auto-interpreted'. On the contrary, there can be no direct evidence of 'intent' which is abstract. Intent can therefore only be presumed. Our interpretation is subject to the biases that we have. Our biases are shaped by our anticipations and apprehensions. All of the mentioned persons could have acted otherwise and have twisted the tale in the direction of their apprehension. This apprehension is guided by their previous 'experience'. But the issue is that by the legal principle of 'Double jeopardy' a person cannot be punished twice for the same action. If that happens, probably there is a role of discrimination at play (discrimination that one who has been accused of theft once will 'evidently' be the culprit in case a subsequent 'probable' theft occurs, worse still that person might get convicted 'again' even though this subsequent incident happens to be a misplacement rather than a theft - but who bothers about whether the contents are valid.) especially when the contents of my words are not given due consideration whether they are valid.


 * I would hope to hear back 'officially' within the next 10 days such that I would not need to escalate the matter to the Wikimedia Foundation or COPE. <b style="color:#f00">D</b><b style="color:#f60">ip</b><b style="color:#090">ta</b><b style="color:#00f">ns</b><b style="color:#60c">hu</b> &#128172; 11:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Joint statement by the editors-in-chief of WikiJournal: After reviewing the case, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the actions of others constitute discrimination against you as a member of a protected group, rather than their previous experiences with your actions for the dates 20 July - 02 Aug and 08 Oct - 11 Oct. Ideas are always welcome on this public discussion page. As a volunteer project, we are unable to police the loss of good will towards your suggestions that may have occurred. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 15:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I would not like to drag this any further. But let me point out that the very statement of the editors-in-chief acknowledge that "their previous experiences" "with my actions" has been the validating ground for their actions. The discriminating ground that I stated was "the virtue (or vice) of my being accused and/or guilty". This exactly equates with "their experience with me" or rather "their apprehensions about me". The editors-in-chief are thus unaware that they are just validating that the discrimination has been in place, and that at least certain board members have not been able to clean the slate (wherein I had been accused or guilty). In fact, during the stated time period, there were two phases that could not be discerned. The first part was where I actually erred, firstly for not being refined in my way of commenting and secondly for confusing two people. This led to my being served with an warning which I gladly accepted and had assured a modification of my behavior. But it was followed by the undistinguished second phase of 'commotion' (which constituted of my protest against certain inappropriate actions of certain others that had been a part of the happenings but were going unnoticed and needed to change). I am sorry that others felt annoyed by this subsequent behavior of mine but rather than presumption of innocence, it was based on 'presumption of guilt' aka the discriminatory parameter of 'being accused and/or guilty'. For my subsequent posts in October, I modified my behavior by choosing to minimize the chances of another protracted email discussion, but documented my points here. But the exact same individuals put up exact same (unsupportable) behavior based on "their previous experiences" "with my actions" i.e. the discriminatory parameter I am talking about. The editors-in-chief acknowledge that but do not find adequate "evidence" for the label.


 * This response of mine does not need any further responses, just a change of perspectives and behavior for certain board members, if that can happen. The 'forgive and forget' principle needs to get to work. <b style="color:#f00">D</b><b style="color:#f60">ip</b><b style="color:#090">ta</b><b style="color:#00f">ns</b><b style="color:#60c">hu</b> &#128172; 10:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Board member re-elections
As per the bylaws of WikiJMed "Editorial Board Members shall serve four-year terms. There is no limit to the number of terms any individual Editorial Board Member may serve." In the editorial board of WikiJMed, there are 3 members whose current term ends on January 1, 2019: Mikael Häggström (myself), Gwinyai Masukume (Assistant editor-in-chief) and Lisa Kipersztok. I think an appropriate first step in a re-election is for the person to actively apply for it. I therefore now add myself below, and advise the other two to do the same if interested in continuing at the positions. I am sure many participants know us pretty well already, but just in case, we can re-introduce ourselves too, preferably by the template as per below. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, as per the bylaws, Eligible voters for Editorial Board Member elections are: (a) Current Editorial Board Members. (b) Peer reviewers of Wiki.J.Med. who have completed at least one peer review. (c) Editors with at least 30 edits to Wiki.J.Med. pages. (d) Not an individual voting for herself/himself.

Mikael Häggström

 * Votes and comments
 * - Mikael has been thoughtful a diligent in his work with WikiJMed, and has great technical aptitude for the ancillary technical elements (emails, web addresses, issn & crossref registrations etc). T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 00:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - Mikael founded the WikiJournal of Medicine. Over the past four or so years two new journals have been added to what is now a successful Family. Besides this, his images which illustrate many Wikipedia pages make Mikael one of the most globally influential Physicians of our times. In my view, time permitting, him remaining at the helm would be apt. Ear-phone (discuss • contribs) 15:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - Mikael has done a great job and I don't see a better suited candidate at the moment. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All seems well with this journal. Keep up the good work!--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * strongly - Without Mikael the project could not have thrived. We would be ever indebted for his contributions. <b style="color:#f00">D</b><b style="color:#f60">ip</b><b style="color:#090">ta</b><b style="color:#00f">ns</b><b style="color:#60c">hu</b> &#128172; 17:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Doc James (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Result: Re-elected, judging by the votes. Thanks to all of you for your continued support! Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 03:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Gwinyai Masukume

 * Votes and comments
 * - I look forward to another term of highly beneficial contributions from you. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 16:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - Gwinyai has been a great contributor to the project, bringing both ideas and action to the board. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 00:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - Gwinyai is a great asset to the Ed board. He is very critical which helps keep everyone sharp. On the other hand sometimes you should watch that this doesn't run out of hand, but until now we haven't had any problems like that so I am reassured. Also a less positive aspect is your refraining from much on-wiki editing. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - The team seems on track --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * strongly - He has been a great team mate and his insights will continue to be of immense value to the project. <b style="color:#f00">D</b><b style="color:#f60">ip</b><b style="color:#090">ta</b><b style="color:#00f">ns</b><b style="color:#60c">hu</b> &#128172; 17:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Doc James (discuss • contribs) 16:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Result: Re-elected. I'm delighted to have you for a second term, Gwinyai! Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 03:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board Editorial board application of Mark Worthen

 * - Useful long term Wikipedian experience and work with ASAPIL should give additional unique perspective. Happy to support as full board member or associate editor if others think that is more in line with previous applicant decisions. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 11:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - Looks like a reliable candidate, with additional benefit of having someone from the psychology field. On the other hand we definitely need more women and people from non-Western backgrounds (guilty in that myself though). --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - <b style="color:#f00">D</b><b style="color:#f60">ip</b><b style="color:#090">ta</b><b style="color:#00f">ns</b><b style="color:#60c">hu</b> &#128172; 18:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - 12:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Result: Accepted to board. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 12:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board Editorial board application of Jason Dixon

 * - Excellent Open Access experience in both journal editorial role and other projects. Uploading medical photography to Commons with patient informed consent clearly relevant background knowledge. Wide professional experience. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 10:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - Great overall skills. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - <b style="color:#f00">D</b><b style="color:#f60">ip</b><b style="color:#090">ta</b><b style="color:#00f">ns</b><b style="color:#60c">hu</b> &#128172; 18:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  11:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Result: Accepted into the editorial board. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 05:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC) Next steps (add DONE or ✅ after someone has performed the task): ✅ Add the new member to the Editorial board page using the WikiJournal editor summary template Awaiting reply about which email to use: Direct-add the new editorial board member to the board's private email group, which will grant them access to the ✅ Also inform the new editorial board member via email (Suggested email template)

Editorial board Editorial board application of Alaa Najjar

 * support as Associate Editor. I think full editorship is premature in this stage. Would you be willing to join in this role? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Would be a superb addition to the team!  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  11:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Despite not having experience with a journal, I think that they have a particularly deep knowledge of wikis (there are only 34 elected stewards across all of WikiMedia projects&languages). I'd also support as associate editor if we wanted to formalise a principle that applicants without prior peer-review-coordination experience should join as associate editor first before moving to the board after assisting with a organising a peer review (as per discussion here). T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 11:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * for editorial board member. <b style="color:#f00">D</b><b style="color:#f60">ip</b><b style="color:#090">ta</b><b style="color:#00f">ns</b><b style="color:#60c">hu</b> &#128172; 16:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Very extensive wiki experience.

Result: Accepted into the editorial board. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 18:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Next steps (add DONE or ✅ after someone has performed the task):


 * 1) ✅ Copy their information over to editorial board page using the  template
 * 2) ✅ Direct-add them to the board mailing list (__ !managemembers/board/add via this link) which will grant them access to the private page only visible to board members
 * 3) ✅ Send a welcome email with starter info to them and cc in the board mailing list so that they and the board are informed  (Suggested email template)

Associate editor application of Mossab

 * - I think it would be great to bring on board some more social media experience to help out. It is also always useful to have the diversity of perspective that med students bring. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 01:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * as Associate editor. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Accepted as associate editor Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 06:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 15:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) ✅  Copy their information over to associate editor page using the  template
 * 2) ✅  Send a welcome email with starter info to them and cc in the board mailing list so that they and the board are informed

Associate editor application of Sherylock

 * - good experience. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * - Particularly interesting on-wiki experience. Although they do not yet have formal academic publishing experience, I think that their background sets them up well to learn through assistance. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 22:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * - This applicant seems to have solid Wiki experience which will surely be useful (some of us - me - struggle to find our way round the Wiki system) but not much cognate experience of academic writing or editing. Rwatson1955 Talk 06:49, 11 December 2018‎

Result: Accepted as associate editor.

Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 15:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) ✅  Copy their information over to associate editor page using the  template
 * 2) ✅  Send a welcome email with starter info to them and cc in the board mailing list so that they and the board are informed