User:Flyer22 Reborn المصدر: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Flyer22_Reborn

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Regarding this? Looking at all of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence and knowing I'd be subjected to similar, and how certain editors go all out to prove false narratives, I cannot deal with that. Like some editors (including Girth Summit) know, I am dealing with COVID issues in the family. That is not something I just made up to get out of going through this "must take down Flyer" thing. It was happening before that, and it's gotten worse. I have a brother (not the one who edits here) in intensive care and a sister who was just put on a ventilator. I already lost an uncle to the virus. And editing here is supposed to help me take my mind off of stuff like that, not be subjected to as much stress and time-wasting that an ArbCom case entails.

I have said goodbye to editors here already. And I will say this before I leave: The argument from a few at the request page that ANI failed an editor because the admins are biased in my favor? Are we to honestly believe that I control all of these well-respected admins? They have their own minds and have disagreed with me before. They saw what they saw. So for this case to be accepted? It feels like this case would have been accepted regardless of the many requests to decline it. This case isn't about the private evidence -- material that I didn't write but am accused of writing. Material that was not passed on to me for scrutiny. None of the Arbs accepted the case on the basis of that "evidence", which speaks to just how immaterial it is. I acknowledge that I haven't always been the most civil. Editors on the case page noted that I work in areas where tempers flare. That's true. Editors accusing me of having been uncivil to them have also been uncivil to me at one point or another, often in the very discussions they've linked to. Beeblebrox stated, "Arbcom is not a court, it's purpose is to stop current and sustained disruption of the project, not to punish users for things they may have done in the past." But that is exactly what the request points to -- a free-for-all for anyone who has ever been in a heated dispute with me, with the added bonus of portraying my behavior as bullying, transphobic, or something else that it isn't. Consensus did not conclude that I was hounding or bullying anyone. Adhering to our policies and guidelines and expecting others to do the same is not bullying or being discriminatory. Criticisms are not automatically personal attacks. And commentary about what took place here at my own talk page can be seen here with my "18:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)" post (scroll on down).

The claim that I went after anyone at WP:Med and made participation at WT:Med talk pages unbearable is false. For example, Sandy and I got along just fine for years until the Medicine ArbCom case and I continued to support Doc James -- our most influential and respected medical editor, who has been the face of WP:Med for years. These "just fine" interactions include stuff like this, this, this, this, this, this, and the view that I am a fine editor for new medical editors to work with. I was never a problem at WP:Med. I have a long history there. And the only supposed instance of me being problematic there is the claim that I was driving away a newcomer. As documented there with evidence, I criticized a newcomer for the same exact thing another editor criticized others for when it comes to adding quality sources. Like me, Girth saw no merit to the incivility claims leveled against me in that discussion. At the moment, I can only recall one other heated discussion I was involved in at WP:Med. And that is this one about the Battered woman syndrome article. But it was just that -- a heated discussion. It was not me being a problem. And, indeed, because of my arguments there and at the article's talk page, the article was moved to its proper name and appropriately expanded. Disagreements over MOS:MED, such as this one in a collapsed box which started off by me suggesting that we discuss significant changes before we make them (and then getting the reply I did), this one where I questioned removing guidance and pinged previously involved editors who helped craft the current MOS:MED guideline (which is perfectly fine per WP:APPNOTE), and challenging what were the "golden years" of WP:Med, does not equate to me being disruptive.

That's all I have say. This is not how I wanted to leave Wikipedia. But with my own declining health, it was only a matter of time anyway. Take care.