Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine/Editors/Archive 2020

Editorial board application of Angelo Basteris

 * I note you have made 2 edits here but mention you have made some edits just not alot, so I globally checked you have made some 66 edits on EN:WP which is also your home wiki, I suggest clarifying that. You state you were chair for a conference publication, was that a major work published as a standalone edition of papers or a set of conference abstracts if I could ask? Is it Internation? or International? Cheers Scott Thomson  ( Faendalimas ) talk 00:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Scott, and apologies for the missing information (edits above). With regards to the 66 edits, most of them appear as part of the training process. The two edits in this field, refer to the fact that I was unsure whether it is possible for me to join the editorial board without having served as Associate Editor - which I am happy to do as well, if needed Angelo Basteris  ( AngeloBasteris ) talk 08:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for your response and the additional information, my queries were largely to determine the format of the conference publication you mentioned, I am also a scientist and am aware that conferences have several different models for what they produce. I think this person can add valuable insight to the Editorial Board. Cheers Scott Thomson  ( Faendalimas ) talk 15:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear Angelo. A question came up whether or not your profile doesn't fit WikiJournal of Science more than it does WikiJournal of Medicine. You may also consider applying to the Editorial Board instead. A later application to another Editorial board is also possible once you have some experience with our process. In any case I also support you on our Editorial Board if you favor that option. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * . Clearly excellent publishing experience and professional knowledge covering a valuable that's outside the current board experience. I think that as the scope of WikiJMed is to cover medicine and biomedicine (broadly construed), I think their research area sits sufficiently within that scope. However I'd gladly support a move or additional application to WikiJSci. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 00:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 *  Accepted into the editorial board. 20:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Next steps (add DONE or ✅ after someone has performed the task):


 * 1) ✅ Send a welcome message and confirm their preferred email address - at User talk:AngeloBasteris
 * 2) ✅ Copy their information over to editorial board page using the  template
 * 3) ✅ Direct-add them to the board mailing list (via this link) which will grant them access to the private page only visible to board members
 * 4) ✅ Welcome them at the board mailing list so that they are informed

Editorial board application of Diptanshu Das (thought provoking)

 * You were previously a board member and left after a long dispute in which we repeatedly asked you to make shorter comments. I see above no evidence that the situation has improved. I think you can be of great help to WikiJournal or Wikimedia in general, but not necessarily as a board member. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Steven Fruitsmaak, in order to create an impression anybody would have avoided what could lower the chance of being accepted. I did just the opposite. Why? Give it a thought. We wish for many things. But do we need to get all of them? Here you are not getting what you asked for. But you are also getting a lot many other things that you did not ask for. You are not happy. That is human nature. But what is more important, convenience or validity check. Give it a thought. Imagine that I had eliminated what you were supposed to react against. In fact, don't you think that it was rather easy for me to put up a likable face with which I would have easily been accepted? My nature would have remained exactly the same as it actually is. If you were to accept me then, would you have blundered? Probably yes. In that case, are you not seeking the wrong thing? Give it a thought. Furthermore, I have clearly delineated some things that needs to be changed with respect to WikiJournal. Is there a difference between a board member vs a non-board member trying to bring in a desirable change? There is. There is a difference in acceptance. If there isn't why are board discussions sealed off from non-board members? What exactly could a non-board member do to get a CoC implemented or to get confidentiality issues defined while making other things open? Not much probably. On the other hand, it would have been much easier for me to steer things positively if I were to become a board member. But I chose the dubious path on purpose. I wanted to provoke thought. I am equally ok with being rejected or getting accepted. But I want you people to do the right thing. There are a number of places that is not happening and people are ok with shrugging dirt under the carpet. There is much you need to think about. So, think again. I am ok with whatever you decide. Diptanshu &#128172; 18:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I find the approach taken in the application somewhat combative, judgmental and with little to suggest that you would be a team player; you clearly have terrific Wiki skills but I do not feel that you fit the current team. Rwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Rwatson1955, I am sorry that you find my approach to be combative. But conditions apply. I am and have always been a team player. But similar to the manner that you have correctly opposed what is unacceptable, I have said that I would not be tolerant to what is unacceptable. There is evidence that WikiJournal has been tolerant to what is unacceptable and I would not be supportive of such things. In that sense we are on the same boat. Talking about being judgmental, let me suggest that I am rational. You judged me to exhibit unacceptable qualities. But were you judgmental? Think again. We are on the same boat. I crafted the situation to provoke thoughts. But please understand that there is a catch. You see, if all I wanted was to get into the board, anyone can guess, how to present ownself as attractive. Think again. I would respect your decision, no matter what.  Dipta<b style="color:#00f">ns</b><b style="color:#60c">hu</b> &#128172; 18:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I like the ideas about growing the journal and formalizing processes. I believe there is a lot of value in avoiding group think.

The potential impact of these strengths and contributions is much diminished by the style of communication. The editorial board is a distributed team, working without the benefit of long shared history or personal bonds, and coming from very different disciplines. All of these challenges make considerations of chemistry and courtesy important, too.

I like the ideas; I am not sure that the gains outweigh the costs in terms of time and stress if there is not compromise on style. It is not an auspicious start in tone or length, but there are good points. I will wait for more data. Eyoungstrom (discuss • contribs) 04:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Eyoungstrom, I appreciate your style of pointing out what is unacceptable. That is exactly how it should be. Earlier somebody had marked some activity of mine as uncivil. The fact is that the very style of that pointing out was uncivil in itself. And, they got away with it. In my communication style I have included unacceptable styles on purpose. I would like clear norms on what is acceptable and what is not. Believe me, I have studied mass psychology quite much in the intervening year to understand how things happen and why. I have found striking similarities in the way how WikiJournal communities work and how social media works. I have also learned that communities pull together really well in times of crisis. That is the reason for me to try this method. Its an experiment that I would like to work out. WJM has led to the establishment of WikiJournal concept. I believe that they have the scientific orientation that is needed. But there is more orientation needed in order to make WikiJournal scalable. Currently, bad people can mess up with the entire model. I hope you would understand. It is not about me walking the path of constructive development. Teamwork is the way to proceed. It does not matter whether you take me along. But without a crisis situation at hand I am not sure whether the team would be keen to work along the good points that you identify. <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; 13:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * : For now, I would be exhibiting dual personality. I would model a rogue and would seek policies that would limit the scope of anyone acting in that way. In the other scenario I would be the friendly person always amenable to reason, that I actually am. In either case, rest assured, what I say would be valid and verifiable. I would be acting in ways you might not be able to predict. Kindly bear with me. <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; 13:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * : I would like the members of WJM team answer my query at Proposing a new WikiJournal - Guidelines? before I post it on the user group. Take two parallel assumptions 1) I am what I claim in the application below 2) I am rogue. In either case, you need to act upon the issue I have delineated on the meta talk page. To be able to block a rogue, you need to define the characteristics needed to identify them. I seek action in this regard. <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; 13:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC) updated <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; 13:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are no doubts you contributed a lot to WJM and Wikipedia, and for what I could learn about your past experience as a board member, you may even have been victim of some injustice. In addition, I find some of your ideas very valuable. But unfortunately, my impression is that there is no possible compromise between all or nothing. Thus I quote you on "So, if you are keen on preserving your freedom of staying casual, please do not vote for me". (Of course, "casual" has many meanings - I believe and aim at staying casual as board member, while of course ensuring due diligence and professionality) Angelo Basteris (Reply) 09:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Angelo Basteris your tone is exactly in lines with Wikimedia standards, exactly how it should be. When you talk about something as injustice, you are essentially taking an individual perspective. I, on the other hand, am more concerned from a community perspective. It does not matter that the supposed injustice happened with me. What matters is that it should not happen ever with anybody. For that, it needs to be defined what is unacceptable and how to deal with it. What I have felt is that WikiJournal currently lacks proper methodology to deal with rogues. Since I am not bothered about being accepted into the board, I thought that I could afford to model a rogue that needs to be dealt with. I am actually going to set up a number of new WikiJournals and would also gather the teams required for their functionality. If anybody else does it, without founding principles and community standards in place, believe me, it would be the road to chaos and I am quite certain that the WikiJournal community would be clueless when an actual crisis arises. I would like to block this possibility and am working towards it. I could somehow not get what you meant by freedom of staying casual. My bad. <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; 10:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Angelo Basteris, here is what I was talking about: meta:Talk:WikiJournal <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; 10:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * : : I would love to see a definite mark of your opposition or support along with the reason you would like to state. I would really be glad if you put your inputs on both the applications. Of course you don't have any obligation to do so, but nevertheless. <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; 10:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Although often full of useful (and even constructive) ideas, the applicant's problematic behaviours consistently outweigh these positives, and their interpersonal interactions with others is a liability. Their past attitude and actions towards other community members was damaging, and they still insist that the cause of their dismissal was the actions of others. In general they have shown a lack of awareness of their actions and how they affect others. Despite words that they are a team player, cooperative, and a good human being, they have also repeatedly failed to constructively change their behaviour and have typically escalated it in stead. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 09:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo), thanks for your inputs. I feel that there is a fundamental mix up. Behaviours of individuals affecting that of others is a two way process. I have previously acknowledged and still acknowledge that there were problematic components in my behaviour. But that does not give license for others to act in problematic manners. That happened but there was no acknowledgement for the same. For example, if you look neutrally, the issue regarding my calling somebody stupid was spurious. I never did that. Most often people go by emotions and not logic. Somebody panicked about something that did not happen, while others never cared to verify. There were people who induced bias. Others fell for it. Nobody here showed any awareness about how their behaviour may affect others (me in this case). My protest is against that.


 * If you go parameter wise through each of the bullet points, I not sure how may points for improvement you can find. If you can, and if you can point them out specifically, and if the points are valid, I would be happy to improvise and believe me, it would be instantaneous. I invite you for the same. Acceptance into the board does not matter to me. Furthermore, if you acknowledge that it is full of useful and constructive ideas, act upon them. I believe that I know the operations of WikiJournals inside out. There are a lot of things that need fixing. People are simply not bothered to have a look. I long for those to be fixed. To me it simply does not matter whether I am in the board. Moreover, I no longer have a face to save. You do. In the past, I have felt sad when at times the EiCs did not act the way they should have, and seemed more concerned saving their face and that of the community at large, else, structures could have crumbled.


 * It is practically a no-brainer about what face to put up to seem acceptable to others. I could have easily gone by that and believe me, others would have not known whether it is genuine. This creates a paradox. I point to this exact paradox, not really bothering about acceptance. I know that people at WikiJournals are more eager to accept things at face value without any eagerness to delve deeper. To me this is of serious concern if you look at a professional platform like journal publication. If you notice, I have put up an apparently intolerant face. But if you look further, my intolerance is conditional and selectively targetted toward what is unsupportable. Tell me that they are supportable, or tell me that one should be tolerant toward them, I would really be happy if you do that, and I would be glad to comply.


 * Talking about being a good human being, do not take my word, check what others have to say. I have provided the link and have not made it up. They have said that unanimously. So, if your perception does not match, perhaps, just perhaps, there is some aspect that you are failing to see. I completely acknowledge that my application seems desperate. But that is because without that I do not see the slightest indication that things could change.


 * The summary is that I am very agile and would modify myself wherever there is a valid reason for the same. I see a paucity of that in the behaviours of others. Ensure that, and I assure you that you would find me the softest person that you can encounter. <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; 11:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * My purpose is to induce a lot of thinking (parametrically). But unfortunately, people are usually more likely to jump to conclusions, without caring to think deep. To me that is perplexing. And, even if I can set them thinking and they are essentially in a fix, they do not remain obliged to change their alignment. To me that is frustrating. I feel that the situation needs to change. If that actually happens, it is essentially a teamwork. I am not sure whether I can do it by placing myself at the front; the team is not aligned enough. Just checking out whether I can make it happen by placing myself on the opposite. Else, who would place ownself as a scapegoat? I did. <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; 11:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Result: Not elected
I agree with the votes above. Although Diptanshu does come with thoughtful ideas, there has been, and continues to be, a combative tone that has a very negative impact on the community that keep the journal going. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Mikael, I do not know if you needed to close the vote this fast. You see, it was never about getting elected. It was about inducing a thought about things people do not bother to think about. If somebody from some government says 'we would not show any tolerance to terrorism or violence (or something bad)' would you term it as intolerant behaviour? I doubt. You see, in my application I have taken a combative tone and I have done it on purpose. I know that people would generalise. If you look carefully, the tone is directed at things that should not be the way they are (like terrorism or violence, in the given example). If you look at my responses, do you think that my tone is combative. If the two tones do not match and if the people are generalising wrongly, aren't they actually at fault? Paradoxical situation. Look at my tone in the responses, do you see any aggression? I don't think so. Yet, people choose the label that is commonly pick up, without really needing an in-depth look. They get to be judgmental. Rwatson1955 and others had the right to be judgmental and oppose what is unacceptable. They did the right thing. Yet I do not have the right because I have said it out loud. Is this how it should be? Give it a thought. Take the example of Steven Fruitsmaak who has validly pointed to the requirement of concise communications for easy brush-through. But when given a choice between convenience or validity check, the answer should be rather obvious. Yet, in action people get to do the reverse. Furthermore, despite remaining in a professional position of a board member, they do not need to answer for what they do or say. That is not how it should be. Things need to change. Things will not change if I ask for. They will change if the thought-leaders get thinking deeply. Within this short span if I can point out so many things that need to be fixed, curiously enough, only my actions get tagged for correction. Mikael Häggström, I would really appreciate if you remove the closure and keep the discussion going. More importantly, I would really be glad if you, Thomas and a handful of others who have been there throughout, take steps corrective actions where needed. Once again, it was never about getting elected. It was about getting a thought process flowing. I am not imposing anything. I want you all to find out what needs to be fixed, and to act accordingly. But without the thought process, you can't do it. <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; 04:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Amelia Buttress
Hi Amelia, thank you for your candidacy. Can you tell us a little bit more what motivates you to participate in Wiki J Med?

I see you also applied for Wiki J Humanities. Your profile definitely fits in both categories. Good luck! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for applying to join the board! Your areas of expertise would be great additions, and I see that you have been teaching with WikiEducation as part of the activities for many years. This looks like a wonderful combination of experiences to bring to the board. Eyoungstrom (discuss • contribs) 14:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

stongly - not many people with your experience. Rwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 13:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

A very strong skillset and even though the application may sound impersonal, your personal homepage shows your passion for health, education and Wikipedia. --AngeloBasteris (discuss • contribs) 06:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Excellent --Gilles Sahut (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone!

My goodness. My apologies for the short and impersonal introduction. It more reflects the challenges of parenting a toddler and trying to maintain the collective lie about working from home. ;) I came to public health from a political philosophy background. Having encountered thinking during my college years that changed my understanding of the world and my place in it, I was always troubled by the incredibly fractured and siloed nature of academic work. In my years at Hopkins, my worries have only grown. More than anything, I’m eager to find a supportive community to experiment with cultivating a meaningful commons. I would so love the opportunity to speak to you all. I’d be more than happy to respond to questions or fill in the applications with more detail. Again, my apologies for the informal and weak communication. intellect (or the commons).  Gingerninjagirl (discuss • contribs) 18:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Especially with the additional information. I think the applicant has a fascinating combination of knowledge areas, backed by significant experience in Wikipedia in a teaching context. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 00:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Result: Accepted into the editorial board. After unanimous support. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 21:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Next steps (add  or   after someone has performed the task):

Finally, move the application to this year's archive page (Suggested email template)
 * 1) ✅ Send a welcome message
 * 2) ✅ Confirm email address
 * 3) ✅ Copy their information over to editorial board page using the  template
 * 4) ✅ Direct-add them to the board mailing list (via this link) which will grant them access to the private page only visible to board members
 * 5) ✅ Welcome them at the board mailing list so that they are informed

Editorial board application of Candace Makeda Moore

 * Support - As an associate editor at WikiJMed, the applicant has been a huge help with both article handling and feedback, and has been an inventive contributor of ideas and action at the meetings that they have attended. I've full confidence that joining the board will enable them to further their already valuable contributions. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 12:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - Enthusiastically support! Knowledgeable, engaged, adding value not just as an editor, but also building videos and working to raise public awareness about the journals. Eyoungstrom (discuss • contribs) 16:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support (via email) She has already been carrying out peer review coordination well, making excellent educational videos and providing great feedback to enhance the project - Gwinyai Masukume


 * , per reasons outlined above. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 06:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Result: Accepted into the editorial board.
 * Support she'll be a valuable addition to the board. Best -- Alaa )..! 11:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Next steps (add  or   after someone has performed the task):

Finally, move the application to this year's archive page (Suggested email template)
 * 1) ✅ Send a welcome message and confirm their preferred email address (usually in their provided website link, else via Special:EmailUser)
 * 2) ✅ Copy their information over to editorial board page using the  template
 * 3) ✅ Direct-add them to the board mailing list (via this link) which will grant them access to the private page only visible to board members
 * 4) ✅ Welcome them at the board mailing list so that they are informed