Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Medicine

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 23:28, 12 April 2020 (→WPMED tension is long-standing: fix link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

Submitting evidence

  • Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.
  • You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.
  • Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.

Word and diff limits

  • Word limits are disregarded for this case, however, it is requested to keep the length of submissions within reason. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.
  • Evidence that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Supporting assertions with evidence

  • Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
  • Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

Rebuttals

  • The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page.
  • Analysis of evidence should occur on the /Workshop page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.

Expected standards of behavior

  • You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
  • Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

  • Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
  • Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
  • Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
  • Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Evidence presented by SandyGeorgia

WPMED tension is long-standing

The WPMED dispute this time erupted after the drug pricing RFC, but some of the fundamental tension that exists in medical editing is about broader, long-standing editing, OWNERSHIP and IDHT that has impacted editors and dispute resolution processes, affecting content and the editing environment since at least 2012.

Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) is a Wikimedia thematic organization and an advocacy organization with its own governing board and projects, aims, applications and interests, based upon Wikipedia content. It was started in 2012 by, among others, Doc James and Bluerasberry. WPMEDF requires an email address renewal every two years for members and has "frequent, ongoing internal communications via email". Members must assert when re-applying biannually that they support the WPMEDF (advocacy) mission. WDMEDF is distinct from, but membership overlaps somewhat with, the English Wikipedia Wikiproject Medicine (WPMED). The overall mission of WPMEDF appears to align with the principles of the Wikimedia movement but not necessarily to the principles, policies and goals of English Wikipedia. As examples, the content on Wikipedia should be freely and easily created and can be edited online by anyone, the lead of an article should be a summary of its most important contents, and Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. Methods used in implementation of external projects—such as internet-in-a-box, translation task force, journal collaboration, and other partnerships with commercial and other organizations—have created potential conflicts of interest as well as conflict with the wider community.

Current and former officers and advisers of WPMEDF include, but are not limited to:

  1. User:Bluerasberry Secretary
  2. User:CFCF
  3. User:Doc James, founding member & co-treasurer

Editors

Bluerasberry

Drug price advocacy

Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view.

Bluerasberry (WPMEDF) has been a driving force behind advocacy[1] for inserting drug prices into pharmaceutical articles,[2] backed by James (WPMEDF), who singlehandedly inserted prices into more than 500 articles, before, during and after a 2016 RFC that found no consensus for an exception to WP:NOT policy. According to Bluerasberry, policy NOT is inapplicable to drug prices because the text is 15 years old, and he outlines a plan for drug pricing content (emphasis added): [3]

The plan has always been that this price information is a pilot, and after we discuss the multiple major social issues around managing this, then we plan for a next set of development processes which include tools, more collaboration, policy development, and better control over this content.

NOPRICE redirects

During formulation of the second drug pricing RFC, it was discovered that Bluerasberry had altered pre-existing redirects, away from WP:NOT policy and to an essay he created, in which he also asserted an inaccurate statement about WP:NOT policy on prices on the first line.

Canvassing at RFC

While I queried the admins as to whether we could ping the many editors who had seen their policy-compliant edits reverted by James on drug price articles, and received a "no" answer as that would basically be canvassing, Bluerasberry canvassed the Video Game Project.[5] So, while over two dozen policy-compliant editors had seen their edits reverted and were not pinged to participate, others were canvassed. Two editors have advocated and achieved a fait accompli to insert drug pricing into over 500 articles, while 26 editorsa attempted to revert that content per policy.

a Editors reverted included 7 student editors (now all gone), 6 IPs, and 13 still-active editors, including Hipal/Ronz and Seraphimblade (who had weighed in on the RFC or formulation) and @Pol098, Jorge Stolfi, Surtsicna, Gprobins, Jrfw51, Garzfoth, Pol098, Zefr, D A Patriarche, David notMD, and Mparagas18:

Altering posts to control the narrative

At Talk:Simvastatin (the edit war which led to this arbcase), where a Wikilawyered and misleading RFC question ("Simvastatin is relatively low cost") was formulated too quickly (and shown inaccurate in subsequent discussion[6]) and was being asked in a format that encouraged editors to offer a "yes or no" to the wrong question rather than discuss to form consensus, Bluerasberry:

  • Altered the Support votes to convert them to a numerical count
  • While leaving the Oppose and Neither (which were all essentially opposes)—that tallied to almost the same number as the Supports-- as bullet rather than numerical points.
  • I undid, saying not to alter others' posts
  • Bluerasberry reverted, but never did the same for oppose/neither !votes, leaving a misleading impression to RFC newcomers.

CFCF

James

Ozzie

QuackGuru

AlmostFrancis

Other

Topics

SG: responses to other evidence

Regarding James evidence, he had never before asked me not to ping him. After he first asked on 31 March, he had an acknowledgment from me within 13 minutes. James misrepresents my statement about "arrogance" and fails to AGF when reading. Yes, it would be arrogant of me to demand that people not ping me because it makes extra work for my arthritic hands. That is my problem: I have the option to change my preferences if the pain becomes too great.

Evidence presented by Doc James

Agree that the issues at WPMED have been ongoing for years. A fair bit of it involve incivility, efforts to silence voices though intimidation, and to close down discussion. We are seeing this in the most recent round of discussions around prices but it is not new. Agree a word limit would be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Efforts to shut down develop of consensus

...

Inappropriate behavior by Colin and Sandy

Some discussed at this ANI in Dec of 2019 with respect to Colin. On Dec 2nd I requested that Colin stop pinging me.(Dec 2nd at 19:04) I had previously requested, a number of years back that they not post on my talk page, which they also did not follow. Colin replied to this request “James As long as you won't drop this issue, you'll get pinged whenever I mention your name.” and he not only pinged me in the reply but continued pinging.[7]

After being brought to ANI and being threatened with a block they backed down. SandyGeorgia was the first one to respond and did not appear to have any concerns with their behavior. She has continued on the pinging tradition with 6 pings on March 30th, all to bring my attention to a single discussion I was obviously watching.[8][9][10][11][12][13] Sandy has criticized me multiple times for requesting unwanted pings to stop, Mar 31st stating "you disallowed pings and were not keeping up with discussion". On Apr 7th she calls those who make such requests "arrogant".

When the harassment team initial stated they were developing a tool to silence unwanted pings, I did not think such a thing was needed as I assumed all one would ever have to do was politely ask. I have now changed my position on this and fully support the development of such a tool.

Consensus being misinterpreted

Evidence presented by Colin

Doc James and QuackGuru are advocacy-editing wrt drug prices

  • "We know that the pharmaceutical industry really really wants to suppress the cost of medications..... Wikipedia is not censored."[14]

Doc James reverts and edit wars on drug prices

User:Colin/PriceEdits contains all edits on drug prices on 530 articles since 2015. They were all added by Doc James. Attempts to remove prices are swiftly reverted by Doc James, occasionally aided by Ozzie10aaa and QuackGuru.

Doc James ignores consensus

Evidence presented by Ozzie10aaaa

Good faith effort/discussion

Evidence presented by bluerasberry

Conduct, not content, is the source of conflict

The nominal subject of this case is "inclusion of prices of drugs in Wikipedia articles". I feel that there has not yet been civil discussion on this topic.

Evidence presented by Hipal/Ronz

Content dispute in Ivermectin

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

Behavioral problems at Ivermectin

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=950604705"