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 16:15, 21 April 2020 (→‎Drug pricing dispute: add 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 COI, OWNERSHIP and IDHT that has impacted editor retention 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 implementation aspects of WPMEDF projects and collaborations has not always aligned with 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 (for example, the Osmosis videos), 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 the appearance of conflicts of interest as well as conflict with the wider community.

Further, several of the WPMEDF projects lead directly to potential conflicts of interest on the English Wikipedia. For example, one of WPMEDF's Projects is an ... effort to get academic credit for contributing to Wikipedia. This desire for publication puts WPMEDF editors in direct conflict with overall aims of a dynamic encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and lends a motivation to semi-protect articles unnecessarily to assure minimal change in content, a motivation to edit war, and de-motivation to keep articles updated once preferred versions have been "set" in peer review or content review processes.

The aims and goals of WPMEDF also place some its members in constant tension with WP:MED founding members, many of whom were responsible for initially crafting the guideline pages for the Medicine Project, WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS, and in particular, Featured article writers who must adhere to policy and guideline. Several long-time highly productive WPMED members have been alienated by seeing the MEDMOS guideline applied as if it were policy when that suits WPMEDF goals, while Wikipedia policy is ignored as if were guideline when that suits WPMEDF goals (for example, WP:NOT on drug pricing).

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

  1. User:Avicenno Membership
  2. User:Bluerasberry, secretary
  3. User:CFCF
  4. User:Doc James, founding member & co-treasurer
  5. User:FloNight
  6. User:JenOttawa
  7. User:RexxS, chair

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 force behind advocacy for inserting prices into pharmaceutical articles, backed by James (WPMEDF), who 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. Bluerasberry holds that the NOT policy does not apply because it is 15 years old, and that there was a plan for drug pricing content (emphasis added): [1]

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

In 2019, it was discovered that Bluerasberry had altered redirects, away from NOT policy and to an essay he created, in which he asserted an inaccurate statement:

Canvassing at RFC

After a discussion about pinging the editors who had been reverted by James on drug price articles, Bluerasberry canvassed the Video Game Project.[3][4] Twenty-six editors editors who attempted to uphold policy were not pinged, while others were canvassed. Editors reverted were 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), @Pol098, Jorge Stolfi, Surtsicna, Gprobins, Jrfw51, Garzfoth, Pol098, Zefr, D A Patriarche, David notMD, and Mparagas18: and others.

Altering posts to control the narrative

At the Talk:Simvastatin RFC, Bluerasberry:

CFCF

Doc James

Some WPMEDF members have expressed conflicts of interest

The WPMEDF project to journal publish has led to conflicts of interest and editing practices detrimental to overall article quality, editor recruitment, and editor retention. Bluerasberry posted this study for discussion at WT:MED, where no one noted a conflict: that the very article assessments being measured are often done by WPMEDF members who may then semi-protect the preferred version for purposes of these publications.

Conflicts of interest have impacted James' use of tools

In the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit", medical articles are often semi-protected—a practice that discourages editor recruitment and can result in outdated, inaccurate static versions of Good articles or Featured articles. Leads only are maintained for the purposes of WPMEDF-inspired projects, with overall content stagnating. Medical Featured articles—the only content reviewed by the community or more than one editor as in GA—have seen once vibrant growth and participation flatline since 2015 and fall out of date, as the focus of WPMED has moved towards off-en.Wikipedia projects and collaborations and away from overall content improvement.

Semi-protection at times appears unnecessary, and there is an appearance of COI in these few samples only. Articles like vagina, penis, sexual intercourse, and Tourette syndrome (coprolalia) do need to be protected from vandalistic edits, but these do not seem to. There seems to be a pattern that, once an article is promoted to GA or FA (or its contents "set" for the translation project or internet-in-a-box), the preferred version is semi-protected without cause.

This oversized, WPMEDF-project template was installed in the references section, pointing to an eight-year-old internal "peer review". Since that review would not hold up to WP:MEDDATE, it is surprising that medical editors would consider it a reference. The appearance is that the template’s purpose was promotional.
Conflicts of interest have impacted content
James has a long-term history of edit warring

User:SandyGeorgia/Edit warring diffs

Case study: Schizophrenia, James editwars with senior editors and content experts

James and Ozzie10aaaa have installed a set order of sections in every medical article, a fait accompli, even though the MEDMOS list is explicitly only a suggestion (largely written by Colin over a decade ago) for writing new articles or substantially rewriting existing articles. MEDMOS says:

The following lists of suggested sections are intended to help structure a new article or when an existing article requires a substantial rewrite. Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines might not be welcomed by other editors. The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition.

James, by fait accompli has also installed a set order of the narrative in the lead of every medical article (edit any medical article and see the inline comments in the lead), which is not prescribed by any guideline, but is a personal preference, related to the use of leads for WPMEDF projects and applications.

Casliber is a practicing psychiatrist, prolific FA writer in the extreme, and responsible for multiple medical Featured articles. Casliber did not initially write the Featured article, schizophrenia , but I pinged him to the article talk page in December 2019 because the article had fallen out of compliance with FA standards. Several editors, including Cas, have worked to restore it to FA standard.

After Cas re-ordered the sections in the article to a narrative that in his opinion better worked for the topic schizophrenia, James reverted in several edits at 09:14 7 January, without the courtesy of discussing first on talk with Cas. At 09:17, I reverted. At 09:24, James reverted again.

Yet another WPMED RFC is held, with all the typical issues discussed in other evidence. The RFC found the suggested order of sections should not be altered, but it is nonetheless only a suggested order, and a practicing psychiatrist and prolific FA writer surely knows how to structure an article on schizophrenia.

Case study: Down syndrome, edit war over an apostrophe

WPMEDF-inspired projects aim for standardizing the leads of English Wikipedia medical content in ways tailored to WPMEDF products, but not necessarily to Wikipedia guidelines. MOS:FIRST—a guideline open to interpretation and consensus—says: "Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc. Down syndrome is a Former featured article that I have followed intermittently since its 2010 FAR.

Diffs of extended edit war and appearances by editors who had never before engaged the article

User:SandyGeorgia/Down syndrome diffs

James never had and still has not gained consensus, yet has edit warred ten times (plus Ozzie’s one) to install a personal preference. In a familiar pattern, when that fails, James starts an either–or, yes–no or otherwise misleading RFC, and reinforcements who have either never before engaged the article or enter little reasoning to support their position, appear to support "per Doc James"; in this case, Ozzie, CFCF and Flyer22 Reborn, in other cases in evidence on this page, other WPMEDF colleagues.

Ozzie

Intersecting contribs Ozzie and Doc James

As demonstrated at Ivermectin, Simvastatin, and Down syndrome, Ozzie10aaaa frequently backs James in editwars. There is already other evidence on this page that Ozzie frequently and swiftly supports James in disputes on articles where Ozzie had never previously appeared, and without providing policy-based rationale. On Ozzie’s most common rationale, Wikipedia search engine reveals:

  • Concur w/Doc James [7]
  • Agree w/ Doc James [8]
  • Agree w/ DocJames [9]

Further analysis of a small portion of James and Ozzie intersecting contribs is at User:SandyGeorgia/Editor interaction. James encounters a dispute on an article where OZ has never before engaged, Ozzie10aaaa is in there quickly, not necessarily fully engaging, but "agreeing per Doc James" with rare exceptions. In the majority of instances, while James had a long history at each article, Ozzie had no prior engagement, and only appeared when James encountered conflict. Ozzie disagreed with James in two instances.

Case study in frustration: Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome, Ozzie10aaaa and James with an inexperienced user

At times, it is apparent that Ozzie is not clear what he is reverting or why, or that he has engaged and digested the discussion. At Talk:Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome in this discussion and this RFC a relatively inexperienced user, User:Thomas pow s, attempts to discuss with James. (It appears to have been a good faith discussion on Thomas' part, met with stonewalling, contradictory information, and Ozzie intervention. We can see from that editor's contribs that they gave up and left.)

Article and talk page interaction at Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome

User:SandyGeorgia/Chronic prostatitis diffs

As the end of what looks like an excruciating encounter for a relatively new user, some content that could have been sourced was cut, and some important theories that needed to have been there all along were added because of this editor's patience. This editor is gone.

QuackGuru

AlmostFrancis

Topics

Drug pricing dispute

Fait accompli

At Ivermectin, in this September 2019 discussion, Hipal/Ronz and Doc James are in a drug price dispute. Ozzie10aaaa enters an "agree w/ Doc James", Seraphimblade disagrees, Quack Guru supports James. The only two independent opinions, who come from Wikipedia:Third opinion are:

Participation in RFC formulation

After the 7 December 2019 ANI close remitted all discussion of drug pricing to a single forum to formulate an RFC, between that time and 23 January 2020 when the RFC was launched, James engaged on 9, 10 and 16 December, and not again until 3 January. [10]

RFC participation affected by canvassing and WPMEDF entering “drive-by” commentary
( See also Down syndrome case study on WPMEDF "driveby" supports)

The second RFC on drug pricing attracted 40 editors (43 total in page history includes the three sysops adminning the process).

Of those 40 editors, 10% (4) were canvassed or were WPMEDF colleagues who did not engage the core of the issue, rather entered "drive by" commentary:

User:Axem Titanium was canvassed from the Video project [11] (see my evidence section above on Bluerasberry)
User:Avicenno (WPMEDF) entered a 6 February no policy-based reasoning, ILIKEIT opinion.
User:AbhiSuryawanshi (WPMEDF) entered a 3 February no policy-based reasoning, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
User:Pratik.pks (WPMEDF- videos) entered a 3 February no reasoning at all—Pratik has five article edits on Wikipedia as of 15 April [12] and has mostly edited the Dengue fever video (a video that “Not anyone can edit”, based on outdated text, and yet installed in the lead of a Featured article)

The RFC was open longer than a month; three WPMEDF members who had no previous engagement entered "driveby" positions within three days of each other.

Simvastatin RFC

The second RFC on drug pricing closed on 27 March. Colin initiated discussion at WT:MED on 28 March. Differences in interpretation and how to implement surfaced quickly. On 29 March, WhatamIdoing took one of the clearest examples of non-compliant drug price text, at Simvastatin, and removed the text from the lead, while adjusting the text in the body. Edit war discussed in other evidence ensued, with James and Ozzie together reverting five other editors on 30 March.

With insufficient discussion on talk, and no discussion about how to correctly frame an RFC, James unilaterally launched another RFC only three days after the community-wide RFC closed. Similarly, he unilaterally launched another RFC at Talk:Ethosuximide.

  • James set up the RFC as a "yes-no" !vote format and disallowed threaded discussion. (This is after months of RFC formulating, and two other RFCs, where WhatamIdoing many times outlined the problems with yes-no RFCs, but James didn't hear that.)
  • James removed attempts by others to hold threaded discussions, and altered the posts of others, running the page like an ArbCom clerk, with no threaded discussions allowed.[13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

Most of the editors opining do not appear to have read or understood what the actual issue is (because it's buried below), but WPMEDF officers and members, having limited previous engagement, support:

With a just-closed community-wide RFC finding no consensus to breach WP:LEAD or WP:NOT for drug prices in the lead, local consensus is overriding global consensus based on WPMEDF support.

Wikilawyering

At the Ethosuximide RFC, after the closing admins had been pinged twice to clarify, James still interprets the RFC conclusion as applying to "numerical" prices only, and repings the admins for a third clarification after they had just been pinged by WhatamIdoing 20 minutes before. Wugapodes responds: "I would encourage editors to read Wikipedia:The rules are principles and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing before trying to find more loopholes as my patience is growing thin." [19]

After Wugapodes clarified the RFC findings, James interspersed his own interpretation of that out of chronological order, and outdented it, creating the effect of highlighting his single interpretation and conclusion in the discussion.

SG: responses to other evidence

Regarding James evidence, [20] 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; I have the option to change my preferences if needed.

The vaccine section at Dengue fever was updated a month after I tagged the section, and the Research section remains dated, while the References section reflects some WP:MEDDATE issues, and the Epidemiology section needs an update.

James' response lists vandalism that well pre-dates the semi-protection at Gastroenteritis.

James' response to the concern about Gout shows a lack of understanding about good-faith misinterpretation of a source, versus vandalism (not all discussion of sex organs is vandalism, and this one wasn't).

FeydHuxtable, thank you for the considered evidence (I don't believe I ever saw that "leading light" reference). I turned my attention prematurely to the Workshop page because it has been impossible to pull up diffs for several days due to something going on with the server, so I was trying to make use of my time. I am also well aware that Workshop proposals are for generating ideas and discussion; please take note of what kinds of remedies I am not suggesting. Bespoke remedies to a novel situation will be needed for us to return WPMED to its former standing, my evidence is aimed at showing why the standard measures may not work, generating ideas for what will work, and I doubt that any of us want to lose any of the few valued medical editors we have. We all just want to be able to edit: for almost five years, I haven't been able to. I also agree that S Marshall has it about right; well-intentioned people trying to do too much, too fast, and not realizing how they are impacting the editing of others. I hope my-- and everyone's-- contributions are equally valued. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding the timing to "launch attacks on Doc James", the timing was James' choice. Barkeep49 initiated this case after James appeared to ignore a community-wide RFC, edit warred, and launched two more local RFCs. Noting that James had time for 175 edits in a 9.5-hour editing session on 16 to 17 April. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.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.[21]

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. They have continued on the pinging tradition with 6 pings on March 30th, all to bring my attention to a single discussion I was obviously watching.[22][23][24][25][26][27] 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 they 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

A 2016 RfC concluded "Except in the cases where the sources note the significance of the pricing (which did have consensus), there is no consensus to add the pricing to the articles." We have plenty of sources that note significance. Plus there was no consensus for removal of prices.

Response to other evidence

With respect to the semi protection of gout, this was in 2012 following a brief episode of semi-protection not being effective. The good "faith edit" to gout that SG described added the text to the "cause" section of the article "gout may also cause the sex organ to shrink in men and render the sex organ inoperable if left untreated". The source they found that supposedly supports this does not mention shrinkage.[28] That SG is trying to present this edit as good faith is strange. I do not clearly remember all the details from 8 years ago, but we did have a pharmaceutical company trying to promote their medication for gout around that time.User:Gout2012

With respect to gastroenteritis, replacing the name of a disease with that of a probable living person is vandalism.[29] Other IP vandalism.[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]

The claims around dengue are false. When a vaccine came out in Dec 2015 it was added that month.[39] When concerns about the vaccine came out in 2017 they were rapidly added that month.[40]

When Sandy tagged the article Jan 28 2020 claiming that the most recent WHO article on the dengue vaccine was old they were simple mistaken.[41] What was there was a Sept 2018 paper by WHO.[42] which one and is still the most authoritative source on the topic. Yes there is a closed source analysis of the paper by Elsevier which does not really say anything different.[43]

With respect to Graham Beards concerns about my edit summary in this edit on March 30th 21:58.[44] This was preceded by a discussion on their talk page March 30th 2020 at 19:21 which they never responded to.[45] They had previously removed all details of cost March 30th at 16:37 from simvastatin.[46]

Evidence presented by Colin

Doc James, Blue Rasberry and QuackGuru are advocacy-editing over drug prices

The community has since 2007 required prices to be exceptional, not routine; to reject the "ephemeral trivia" of "street prices" "that can vary widely from place to place and over time" and not be "a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions". This policy statement came from two lengthy discussions (here and here).

The earliest medical discussion on drug prices is this one from 2010. There was very much support "to remove such information on sight" and reaffirming policy requirement for notable issues concerning price. This prompts User:WhatamIdoing to add prices to the MEDMOS list of things (along with dose and titration) that should not be included in articles "except when they are extensively discussed by secondary sources". The MEDMOS change is swiftly synchronised with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide by User:Anypodetos. This view requiring prices to be exceptional and notable is repeated at this discussion in 2014 on the Pharmacology Style guide.

The advocacy to include drug prices in all articles begins in this discussion at WT:MED from June 2015 started by User:Bluerasberry, who wants a "List price for month supply (US)" infobox field. This idea is strongly rejected by several users. James picks up the idea with this discussion in August 2015 which is on the talk-page of the {{Infobox drug}} template and is about the infobox and wikidata, not article leads. Ozzie10aaaa supports, though is short on justification. Bluerasberry, on the other hand, is effusive with advocacy reasons to include prices. There is strongly held opposition and no consensus to add prices to wikidata, infoboxes and never once is there a suggestion to add price sentences to the lead.

In August 2015, James begins adding MSH Price Guide based prices to the leads of drug articles. After inserting prices in 30 articles, James removes "pricing" from the "do not include" list at both style guides: here and here. He justifies the edit by citing the 2004 Pharmacology Style guide discussion. That discussion was very much against routine prices. The discussion resumes, provoked by opposition to James's change to the style guide, and BlueRasberry continues advocating for prices.

After adding prices to 100 drug articles by May 2016, James informs WP:MED of what he has been doing by starting a poll-style RFC. It is somewhat unclear what the RFC is actually proposing, other than a vague confirmation of what James has done, which isn't described in any detail. Ozzie10aaaa offers James his support, without any rationale. BlueRasbery joins in with his advocacy. James notes "Doctors Without Borders has done a fair bit of work to increase price transparency [47] and this is something they are interested in collaborating on." About 40 participants discuss and are numerically split evenly.

Admin User:Jc37 closes the RFC in July 2016: "Except in the cases where the sources note the significance of the pricing (which did have consensus), there is no consensus to add the pricing to the articles." Despite a lack of consensus to add prices, and an explicitly requirement for the sources to "note the significance of the pricing", James continues to add prices solely sourced to product price databases, which contain no commentary on the price at all. By the end of the 2016, over 300 drug articles have MSH Price-guide "developing world" prices, and currently 530 drug articles have explicit price statements in their lead (User:Colin/ExistingPrices). As User:Colin/PriceEdits shows, the vast majority of the edits to insert prices have no edit summary or the vague "added".

There is an edit war at Ivermectin in September 2019 over prices. In the talk page discussion, James notes industry lobby/censorship, lawsuits about TV commercials and industry hiding costs. At WP:NOT's talk page, James notes industry transparency issues and makes a comment about his personal experience. At WikiProject Pharmacology, James makes further advocacy comments. At WP:NOT, James says (without providing evidence) that "Every essential medicine has extensive coverage / discussion of its pricing by reliable independent sources" (there are 500 WHO essential medicines).

In October 2019 QuackGuru edits MEDMOS in support of James's article-lead pricing, and edit wars over this (see Barkeep's timeline). A long discussion begins WT:MED, mostly involving James and Colin. CFCF makes a personal attack on Colin. James posts about the pharmaceutical industry suppressing medication price information and then accuses Colin: "That you are pushing the industry position to try to WP:CENZOR Wikipedia is concerning." James goes on to create a subheading "Knowledge equity" where he expands his advocacy case. . The discussion continues on the MEDMOS talk page. Here QuackGuru says "NOT does not apply to medical content." (presumably referring to WP:NOT). James argues that relying on "the popular press" would lead to a US bias (presumably referring to WP:NOTPRICES policy requirement for mainstream media sources). JzG raises a concern about making the RFC conclusion watertight.

After over a month's gestation and much discussion, the RFC opens on 23 January 2020. James argues that prices are critical to human health and hyperlinks to an advocacy organisation's story: "Secret medicine prices cost lives". James tries to dismiss that WP:NOTPRICE ever had consensus. James selectively quotes WP:NOTPRICE. QuackGuru says readers may want to compare prices to other similar drugs. BlueRasberry argues that WP:NOT does not apply here and that he is not concerned about current article content. Later he makes a further dismissal of WP:NOT. BlueRasberry notes his previous employment relationship with Consumer Reports.

The RFC closes after two months on 27 March. A few editors remove price content from a few articles. The prices are restored by James, and edit warring occurs (see Barkeep's timeline). On 13 April, James criticises the RFC and those who drafted it.

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

SG

Colin

copied from the Main page response...... (With regard to Colin's indication ...I agree w/ Doc James, it should be checked in my edits that 1. I have on several occasions "agreed w/ WAID [WhatAmIDoing]" (on other articles/matters) , 2. as well as many other editors...I don't/never will write a "wall of text", I usually keep it simple, 3. and most important I don't always agree w/ Doc James, therefore I do not support/do not comment on the article/matter whatever it might be, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC))--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Behavioral problems at Ivermectin

Related behavioral problems at IPhone 11

Evidence presented by {D A Patriarche}

Against including any pricing info

I was not aware of edit warring; I am glad to have it drawn to my attention. I had assumed the widespread insertion of pricing info was evidence of GF & WP consensus, & bowed to what I took to be policy. However, I am strongly against including this information, most especially in the lead. Some of my arguments were published on the Methocarbamol Talk page: Talk:Methocarbamol#Marketing - cost in 2018-19, but received no response from Doc James or any other editor.

Methocarbamol is a drug of particular interest to me, partly because it's a "poor sister" to contemporaneous drugs such as the benzos. It's very widely prescribed and taken OTC but comparatively little research has been published. Because of its enormously wide use OTC, especially in analgesic compounds for back pain, the "pricing" information seemed particularly egregiously misleading to me. I am a former medical biophysics researcher with a continuing interest in the field. --D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence presented by Jorge_Stolfi

Distortion of Wikipedia's goals

I have clashed with DocJames on several articles.
For one thing, he seems to have decided that he "owns" articles on pharmaceuticals, and proceeded to edit them according to specific idiosyncratic rules, with a rigid layout for the head section; and shows little tolerance for views of other editors. Most pharmaceuticals are also chemical substances, however he insists that the corresponding articles be cast as "pharmaceutical articles", in his standard "pharmaceutical" format and with a "Drug" infobox instead of a "Chemical" infobox. In at least one case, ascorbic acid, the article had to be split in two, one about vitamin C as a drug, and another one as chemistry of ascorbic acid -- instead of placing that contents as separate sections of the same article.
Another problem is that he has sought to organize the articles on medical drugs according to the WHO list of essential medicines. In vain I tried to explain that Wikipedia is not meant to mirror the content or organization of external databases, even if authoritative (which that list is definitely not).
Finally, he insists on listing the market price in the head section of every drug article. While that information does not seem to have commercial motives, it is inappropriate for Wikipedia because it is ephemeral, may vary a lot from country to country, and is better obtained directly from external sources rather than from Wikipedia. My attempts to remove those lines were promptly reverted by DocJames, ignoring my justifications.
More than a complaint about DocJames's behavior, this comment of mine should be read as a complaint about the attempts of many editors to turn Wikipedia into a federation of partial encyclopedias, each managed by a clique of editors of one specific WikiProject, who assert "ownership" of those articles and thus act as if their preferences had priority over those of other editors.
Wikipedia would be infinitely better if all WikiProjects were closed and their guidelines deleted, if every topical sidebar or navbox like {{Template:Thermodynamics sidebar}} was eliminated from individual articles and turned an index section in the main article of the topic.
Also, every infobox like {{Template:Infobox drug}} should be reduced to a button that the reader had to click to expand into the full box. Then an article on something that is both a chemical, a drug, a fuel, and a foodstuff could have all four infoboxes -- instead of only one, arbitrarily chosen.
However, there does not seem to be a space in Wikipedia where those systemic diseases could be discussed...
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall's evidence

On another RfC within the scope of WP:MED

On electronic cigarette: Doc James reverts my changes and suggests I could try RfC. I began the RfC Doc James suggested on the same day. Doc James expressed confusion about what the RfC was asking. I explained, and please will Arbcom also note from that diff where I specifically asked Doc James to slow down and read attentively (emphasis in the original diff). Cunard closed the RfC with consensus for the changes I proposed. Doc James then claimed (on my talk page) and claimed (on the article talk page) that he thought the RfC that I'd begun at his suggestion was about a pipe link.

Analysis

Doc James isn't basically an obstructive editor, although he does display an awful lot of confidence in his own judgment. And this isn't a deliberate tactic to exert control and ownership of article content. His behaviour does have that effect, but it's not intentional. It's because his attention is spread so thin. His watchlist is so big, and he's active on so many pages, and he makes so many edits per day, that he can't follow the sequences. Therefore he doesn't make the connections that would be obvious to someone more focused.

With hindsight, my RfC could have been more clearly-worded, although nobody else who participated experienced any confusion.

Evidence presented by FeydHuxtable

SandyGeorgia, Colin & Doc James are serious editors, we're extremely lucky to have them. So it's distressing to see them squaring up on a board that traditionally see's a decisive winner.

SandyGeorgia and Colin were amazing MEDS editors

Back in Jan 2019 I noted it would be good if Sandy & Colin returned to being "leading lights on the MEDS project. " . That was based on considerable attention to their work (as explained here.)

Sub optimal time to launch attacks on Doc James

As others have noted, this can be seen as a conduct dispute. Given the nature of submissions so far, this case is no longer just about drug prices. The outcome has a bearing on the Docs future participation in senior roles.

Granted, theres much valid criticism that could be levelled at the Doc and his crew, S Marshall's point is an excellent example. Yet medicine is an especially challenging area. Articles have an above average potential for harm, aggravated by motivated editing from cranks & shrills. So little wonder a group of "good" editors with clique like qualities emerged. It's not easy to diff, but on balance the current MEDS team seem a huge net positive – and article quality likely to suffer if they're taken down.

What can be easily demonstrated is that Covid is causing abnormal stress to editors with the most relevant real world expertise. This mirrors real life where nurses have took their own lives due to the stress. At least two editors with RL expertise in infectious disease recently expressed a desire for a permaban or courtesy vanishing, which the young doctor later clarified as partly due to Sandy & Colin.

Some have said if folk have time to edit war over prices in articles, they have time to discuss. That would be fine if this was just about prices, but as above the fate of outstanding editors seem at stake. Even though she's a party to this case, Sandy has already laid out 8 remedies for Doc James and his crew, which in context seem severe. Talk about being previous, the evidence phase hasn't even closed, the Doc might change his position. Sandy's multiple edits to the case these last few hours suggest she's on a mission. Jytdog may have been overly aggressive, but his resignation to the community at his Arb case was angel like in comparison. Granted, knowing some of the history, Colin and Sandy's recent actions may be justified. There's literally > 1000x to this than there was to the portal case, so it's hard to form an accurate opinion. Hence not posting many diffs against them, though it would be easy to build a submission suggesting they're more at fault than Doc James. IMO it's currently not realistic to expect the community to carefully attend to this. It's to be hoped the side too busy saving lives to properly defend themselves isn't rewarded with severe sanctions.

Evidence presented by AlmostFrancis

Response to evidence by SandtGeorgia (SG)

SG claims that their is a direct conflict of interest between Wikipedia and WPMEDF as it pertains to encouraging colleges to give academic credit to Wikipedia work. SG then gives a list of reasons that would seem to fit better with the Feautured Article process, which as far as I know has never been considered a COI. SG give no evidence to support her assertion about WPMEDF and as far as I an tell the assumption would be that the article would be edited in the standard way.


Evidence presented by Barkeep49

Timeline of MOS Dispute

  • July 28, 2006 WP:MEDMOS created as a proposed guideline
  • April 29, 2007 MEDMOS becomes a guideline with Colin and Sandy Georgia each having contributed substantially to the writing.
  • April 8, 2008 First mention of drug cost/pricing on the guideline talk page (discussing what scenarios it would be included)
  • July 16, 2010 WhatamIdoing introduces language about not including drug pricing following a discussion at WikiProject Pharmacology
  • September 4, 2015 Doc James removes the prohibition on including drug pricing linking to a discussion at the Pharmacology WikiProject
  • May 15, 2016 Doc James starts an RfC at WikiProject Medicine to include pricing in medication articles. References three prior discussions: [48] [49] [50]
    • July 9, 2016 jc37 closes the RfC with the close of Except in the cases where the sources note the significance of the pricing (which did have consensus), there is no consensus to add the pricing to the articles. There were several ways to present this information proposed in the discussion (such as wikidata). Please feel free to start a follow-up discussion regarding that.
  • September 30, 2019 Doc James makes a change to the guideline saying pricing/costs may be included if reliably sourced
  • October 1, 2019 QuackGuru creates a new section on product pricing expanding on James' language.
    • A series of edits [51] [52] [53] [54] by Doc James and QuackGuru ensue about placement and wording.
    • October 11 WAID further adjusts the wording and formatting of the pricing section
  • November 14, 2019, after not having edited the guideline for just over 6 years, Colin makes a series of edits that changes multiple sections of the guideline including article titles, LEAD, and product pricing.
    • QuackGuru reverts Colin's change to product pricing minutes later.
    • Over the next 5 days QuackGuru makes a series of further changes in response to Colin's edits, including one to product pricing whose edit summary is Add neutral worded content. See WP:CIR.
    • November 21, 2019 DocJames further reverts some of Colin's changes.
  • November 21, 2019 QuackGuru opens a discusson at Talk page for WikiProject Medicine
  • December 5, 2019 01:15 Ozzie10aaaa opens an ANI thread reporting Colin for incivility and excessive pinging of Doc James.
    • December 5, 2019 09:08 NilEinne proposes an indef block of Colin. There is some support but a majority oppose.
    • December 5, 2019 10:50 Colin proposes a TBAN on Doc James from drug pricing. There is a little support but a strong majority oppose.
    • December 6, 2019 10:33 JzG and Guy proposes a four point plan for moving forward. There is nearly unanimous support.
    • December 7, 2019 19:53 Barkeep49 closes enacting Guy's proposal and adding two implementation notes as closer.
  • December 8, 2019 Kashmiri removes the product pricing section.
    • QuackGuru reverts two minutes later.
    • Peter coxhead reverts three minutes after that.
    • Barkeep49fully protects the guideline 22 minutes later.
  • December 21, 2019 Tryptofish creates a proposed RfC format
    • December 26, 2019 Tryptofish creates a second RfC format draft
  • December 22, 2019 SandyGeorgia launches an RfC on the guidelines for the lead
  • January 1, 2020 WhatamIdoing proposes an RfC structure
    • After discussion and revision this would be the template for the RfC which is launched
  • January 7, 2020 Barkeep49 updates AN on the dispute both on the RfC and conduct. This includes asking for closers.
    • Ymblanter and Wugapodes volunteer to be closers.
    • January 20, 2020 Rosguill responds to a plea from WhatamIdoing to be the sysop to certify the RfC is neutral
  • January 7, 2020 Casliber launches an RfC about the order of sections in the guideline
  • January 23, 2020 Barkeep49 launches the RfC on pricing
    • Ymblanter marks the RfC as closing
    • Wugapodes closes the RfC
Closing statement
* Editors are generally opposed to inclusion of prices in the lede. While basic calculations are not considered original research, the pricing statements in the examples require interpretation of primary sources that may not be straightforward. This makes the editorial claims difficult to verify, and especially so for drugs whose prices are not widely discussed in published sources. In addition, there are concerns that proper explanation of the situation for the indicated price would give the price undue weight.
  • There is no consensus on whether drug prices should be included in articles at all. Where secondary sources discuss pricing extensively (insulin being a frequently cited example), that information may be worth including in the article; where there is little discussion of pricing in secondary sources, it generally should not be included. Drugs which fall into the grey area between these extremes should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Where pricing information is included, claims should be sourced to reliable, secondary sources and not solely primary source data from price databases.
  • Whether to include prices in the infobox was not widely discussed but is unlikely to find consensus. Arguments against inclusion in the lede would similarly apply to inclusion in the infobox, and editors should be aware that inclusion of prices in the infobox is likely to be opposed in most cases.


Thank you to everyone who participated!

    • The closing would end up with several clarifying statements by the two closers
  • January 24, 2020 Barkeep49 removes full protection from the guideline.
  • January 25, 2020 Barkeep49 topic bans AlmostFrancis under discretionary sanctions from all Medical MEDMOS discussions broadly construed for this comment.
  • March 28, 2020 Colin opens a discussion about the RfC at the WikiMedicine Project
    • Discussion remains ongoing
Post RfC Case Study: Simvastatin
  • March 28, 2020 WhatamIdoing removes information from Simvastatin citing the RfC
    • March 29 Doc James in a series of edits adds information about the drug being low cost cited to a new source and also starts a talk page discussion about the new source
    • March 30 Graham Beards reverts citing the RfC
    • About 3 hours later Doc James reinstates the revert and further adjusts in a series of edits
    • 25 minutes later Hipal partially reverts Doc James
    • 5 minutes later Hipal starts a discussion at WikiProject Medicine about Doc James addition
    • 5 minutes later Doc James adds new pricing information
    • 55 minutes later WhatamIdoing replies to the talk page discussion disagreeing with Doc James
    • 12 minutes later Doc James replies
    • 14 minutes later Doc James opens an RfC about the disagreement
    • Just over an hour later Seraphimblade reverts citing NOPRICES and information unsupported by the reference
    • 15 minutes later Ozzie10aaaa reverts Serphaimblade
    • 4 minutes later Sandy Georgia requests page protection at WP:RFPP
    • 1 minute later Sandy Georgia reverts Ozzie10aaaa citing the RfC
    • 13 minutes later Ozzie10aaaa reverts Sandy Georgia
    • 7 minutes later Sandy Georgia tags the disputed information
    • A couple hours later Whywhenwhohow adds additional price information
    • 40 minutes later Ymblanter fully protects for three days
  • March 30, 2020 Barkeep49 requests an ArbCom Case be opened
    • April 7, 2020 the case is formally opened
  • April 12, 2020 Doc James removes the disputed tag around the LEAD in the guideline
    • 43 minutes later Sandy Georgia reverts
    • 4 minutes later Doc James restores and opens a discussion on the guideline talk page
    • April 13 Colin removes a sentence
    • 41 minutes later Sandy Georgia makes further changes to the section
    • April 14 Sandy Georgia adds a citation needed tag
    • April 15 Doc James adds a reference to address the citation needed tag

QuackGuru History

  • Block log includes:
    • 5 editwarring blocks
    • 3 disruptive editing blocks
      • 1 additional disruptive editing blocks where the block sysop accepted an unblock request
    • 2 Personal attacks or harassment: continued disruptive editing, edit warring, harassing other editors blocks
    • 3 Arbitration enforcement blocks
    • 1 overturned indef block
  • July 23, 2011 topic banned from pseudoscience and chiropractic, broadly construed, for one year.
  • October 6, 2015 topic banned from acupuncture
  • November 17, 2015 warned by ArbCom about e-cigs
  • April 19, 2016 topic banned from Vani Hari and the talk page for 3 months
  • August 23, 2017 topic banned from all articles and edits related to religion, broadly construed by the community

Evidence presented by Graham Beards

Doc James acts as though he his exempt from our policies

Here is an extract of a comment I wrote in 2018 [55] and it is sad to note that nothing has changed.

"He (James) has a cavalier attitude to the core principles of Wikipedia and collaborative contributing. He seems to think consensus means agreeing with him and never considers for a second that he might be wrong. His arrogance knows no bounds. He is difficult to work with and often doesn't bother with edit summaries. It seems to me that James strives to dumb down Wikipedia when others strive to improve it as a solidly reliable source. Our policies on verification and so forth have done us proud. James's hard work and apparent popularity must not be used undermine and negate our core principles".

All of this is still happening. The lack of edit summaries, or worse, the untruthful ones are a particular concern. He reverts edits with the summary "adjusted". As he did here [56] when I deleted a vague comment about the cost of atorvastatin (a drug I have to take every day and turned to our article for other information).

With regard to our coverage of the coronavirus pandemic, which to be frank was worse than poor to begin with, I had to point out to the Medicine Project that a pandemic was actually happening and that our less experienced editors were alone at the helm! When James and other Med Project members finally came to help all regard for WP:MEDRS was left behind and Facebook and Twitter were being allowed as sources.

James seems to think that he is above his peers (e.g. me) in a (non-existent) Wikipedia editors pecking order. Graham Beards (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by RexxS

The disputes need to be seen as philosophical, not behavioural

Unusually, I'd like to present narrative testimony, rather than a series of assertions about behaviour. I do this because I continue to believe that attempts by ArbCom to understand the issues will be distorted if they view the case solely through the lens of a behavioural dispute. I also believe that a better understanding of the proper scope of this case case requires a full understanding of its history and context.

First of all, I contend that the vast majority of parties to this case are respected, long-term editors who have made considerable contributions to the field of medicine on Wikipedia over many years. It should be taken as a given that every single party's foremost aim is to improve Wikipedia, although there exists a wide range of opinion on how that is best achieved. I'll supply metrics on editor contributions if anyone wishes to challenge my initial contention.

Secondly, I contend that there is a broad philosophical difference on the question of innovation on Wikipedia. There are not two distinct camps, but there is a spectrum of affinity to two distinct positions: one which wishes to preserve the established encyclopedic conventions of highest quality, sourced, textual content, supplemented by images; and another which wishes to experiment with new formats, new outlets for content, and new sources of information. For what it's worth, I see that same difference of philosophy not just in the medical field, but I'll confine my evidence here to medicine.

Finally, I contend that where some editors push hard to innovate on a particular issue, a flash-point often occurs where other editors resist the changes involved. This is partly due to differing philosophical leanings, and partly due to problematical personal interactions, and I acknowledge my own inability to work with some editors, where I just seem to "rub them up the wrong way". I'll adduce examples of where these flash-points have occurred over several years, and I'll give my understanding of what was happening.

Background

I'd like to make clear my own background: I've been editing for more than 12 years. I have some expertise in technical issues and hyperbaric medicine. I am a founder member of WikiProject Med Foundation, now known as Wikimedia Medicine (WMMED) since it was granted thematic organisation status as an international affiliate to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). I have served as secretary to WMMED and now am privileged to serve as its chair. For six years, I've also been a trustee of Wikimedia UK (WMUK), the UK chapter affiliated to the WMF. I maintain that I have no conflict of interest between either of those affiliates and my contributions to the English Wikipedia, because the affiliates' aims are aligned by their constitution with those of the Wikimedia movement. Nevertheless, the members of WMMED are international, and represent many different countries and languages. That predisposes them to taking a different view on innovation from editors working principally on a single Wikipedia.

Translations

One of the first tasks undertaken by WMMED was to identify a number of vital health articles, and then to translate them into as many different languages as was possible. An organisation called "Translators Without Borders" partnered with WMMED to do translations, both on a rolling programme and on demand whenever a medical emergency occurred in a region where there was little Wikipedia health information available in the local languages. The first target was to translate the lead section of those vital articles as widely as possible.

That presented consequences such as the problems caused by a lack of sourcing in the lead of articles, which needed to be carried over to the short translated articles being created in multiple language Wikipedias. That lead directly to initiatives to source the lead section of medical articles and the advice in WP:MEDLEAD to provide citations. Similarly, the advice to keep language simple and to make sure that the lead contained a comprehensive overview of the topic were partially driven by a desire to make the translations as rapid, accurate and comprehensive as possible.

That naturally created a tension with other editors who wanted to see the guidance in MEDLEAD match that in MOS:LEAD. That has recently produced edit wars over the wording, multiple debates on the talk pages and eventually an RfC.

Internet-in-a-box

Another initiative by WMMED was a partnership with Internet-in-a-box (more detail at meta:Internet-in-a-box), which aimed to make available Wikipedia's medical content in a number of languages to areas where no internet access existed. A device was produced that used a tiny computer working as a wireless access point and serving all of the medical content via Kiwix (a WMF sponsored project to distribute content offline on small memory cards). That was used in many places throughout the third-world, and found use as part of emergency response to disasters where the infrastructure had been destroyed.

While working on VideoWiki last year (see next section), we were presented with evidence that multimedia presentations such as videos had far better results in communicating health information for people who could understand spoken English, but not read it. Hardly surprising, of course, but it lead several of us to conclude that there would be extra value in including videos in content delivered offline (where the target audience is often poor in reading English), even when consensus was against placing such videos on the English Wikipedia. As a compromise, I created Template:OnlyOffline which excluded its content from the online Wikipedia, but allowed it to be read and delivered offline by readers like Kiwix. Believing that the template would have general use, I requested a CSS class be created at

The use of the template was challenged at its talk page. It started cordially, but descended into unpleasantness, spilling over into criticism of the VideoWiki project and the Internet-in-a-box project in general:

That lead to a lengthy and rather acerbic proposal to delete the template:

Videos

to be continued

Drug pricing

to be continued

Evidence presented by Ian Furst

Timing of this is horrible

Myself, and many others in HC, are deep in mitigation and management of COVID. I would participate more but my energy is needed elsewhere. Time for a meaningful debate is just not available even if we find time to comment on talk pages. The lack of a word limit makes this doubly-hard. Also, tensions are high for everyone right now due to COVID which may influence passions and positions.

Conflict:Content

I do not perceive the conflict on WP:MED any worse than other pages. In fact, I find it less partisan, more evidence based, and generally civil. Especially with the number of articles we collaborate on. I have no means to measure the conflict:content ratio but my perception is it's low.

WPMEDF

The Wikiproject Medicine Foundation’s mission is “To make clear, reliable, comprehensive, up-to-date educational resources and information in the biomedical and related social sciences freely available to all people in the language of their choice on and off line.”[57] not to somehow subvert the purpose of Wikipedia to an alternate path. Last year, we made an application through Gates to bring Wikipedia to war ravaged areas with Internet in a box. That is the work of WPMEDF (among many others). The WPMEDF has made no claims to MEDMOS, the goals of Wikipedia, and “WP:MED founding members” should have no claim on WPMEDF or it’s membership. I find it troubling that experienced editors, with a long history of editing without COI, should have to defend their charitable affiliations over what is, largely, a content dispute. I also worry about the precedent set if this line of argument is entertained.

Conflict scope is relatively narrow

The conflict is isolated to a few very niche areas of WP:MED. For instance, an edit and then the question, "Should we state " Simvastatin is relatively low cost." at the end of the 4 paragraph of the simvastatin article?" resulted in the current conflict. Yes, it's around pricing but if we accept that there is no community consensus for this, the statement itself (with a reference) is nothing compared to many of the topics dealt with in WPMED. Of the ?thousands of edits that are made and managed on WP:MED monitored articles, we do pretty well at building consensus. This interaction between James and Sandy from just 3 days ago is civil and closer to the normal[58].

Simvastatin case

With respect to current content conflict: pricing in the Simvastatin article has been present since 2008 [59] and long before Doc James. First as a cost/benefit issue then as an essential medicine issue. Always with allowed sources. The attribution to Doc James as the source of conflict are misleading in my opinion.

edit>>revert>>edit>>discuss>>RfC when other guidance fails

Regarding the broader content issue of discussing relative pricing; there is no consensus among WP:MED editors despite the RfCs, therefore, page discussions and RfC's have resulted. The path of edit>>revert>>edit>>discuss>>RfC is the prescribed process and Doc James (and many others) has followed it. See example in previous section; more available. Without community consensus this is the appropriate pathway to resolution of content issues imo.

There is an organized effort to block content creation

Doc James is adding (pricing and much more) content on pages that he has often created and edited for years (one example). Adding cited content is a normal evolution of all pages. A group of editors does not like pricing, but rather than participating in the content creation process of edit>>revert>>edit>>discuss on the pages, off page discussions have resulted in blocking the content. I have concerns that a group of editors, who do not normally edit a set of articles, can create a rule forbidding it or it's placement in the article.

On the same note of disrupting content creation without participation, I've previously logged evidence about my experience with Colin with his mission to stop VideoWiki[60]. To repeat, myself, James and Pratik came together for a 6 month push to make the platform Wikipedia compliant and engaging. At each stage of development and in almost any forum we needed to post, Colin would participate with 1,000+ word comments, links to his essay on his opposition to video, dismissive remarks about the project, hyper-critical remarks about the quality, and belittle stated reasons for the project. Examples can be found in the discussions about a namespace for scripts, templates for offline discussion, even congratulations on a Slate article and minor edits of related files on Commons. Constant critiques like, "...boring Siri slide show...", "...better of watching a video created by an Indian government agency...", "...glorified PowerPoint slideshows with tedious robot narration...", "...half-baked "solution" to a problem Wikipedia does not have...", etc... and being followed around Wikipedia is both exhausting and a little frightening. It certainly made me second guess posting in many discussions and it absolutely took much of the enjoyment out of volunteering for the project.

Doc James will engage with anyone willing to discuss

I see a lot of blame being thrown at Doc James for not resolving conflict but he is following the rules and is an active content contributor to all of these articles. He does not claim ownership nor does he roll over when he disagrees with an edit. He has saved medical content from conflict of interest editing with bold edits. On the other hand, other editors, who have never contributed to a page make unsourced content changes then claim foul when Doc James reverts it. Just two examples already in evidence in this Arbcomm case:

  • Doc James contributed to Atorvastatin regularly for 9 years only to have the pricing info deleted with the editor commenting "deleted drug "cost" fromm the Lead as per RfC"[61]. That was the editors only contribution to the article and now a claim that Doc James didn't leave an adequate edit summary in reverting that edit.
  • Doc James contributed and edited Down Syndrome for a decade only to have an editor drop in and add an alternative name in the lead which he edited to the infobox[62]. A battle resulted about where this content should go (and is now cited as evidence about his incivility) without mentioning that the instigating editor appears to have no other interest in content creation on this page[63] except to see this single edit in the first sentence. I would urge Arbcomm to read the Talk page of this; Doc James started the discussion, started the RfC, and offers some very compelling arguments for his position. With that, the consensus is split and the added text is still in the first sentence. Regarding the "...we have a history of being the two most prolific medical editors on English Wikipedia" comment cited above (a) that is factually correct and (b) it was not braggadocious but in response to an editors dismissive response to Ozzie agreeing with Doc James.

Walls of text and changing questions in RfCs

A significant issue with building consensus is the use of walls of text and editors rapidly changing scope and context of (originally) pointed RfC’s...

  • As entered in evidence above, and in answer to the question "Should the lead of ethoxuximide summarize the section on cost as "As of 2008 it was generally affordable in many areas of the world." by Doc James on Apr 5 (a modification from a previous sentence on March 31), I offered an answer[64] that is quoted as arbcomm evidence as "Ian Furst may not of realized he was answering the wrong question". When the flow of the talk page is reviewed[65] it can be seen my answer was in response to the RfC question. The critique (I believe) is aimed at the difference between the NOPRICE argument I discussed vs LEAD and WEIGHT. Left out, is that Sandy had originally opposed (the RfC in general) and the original sentence based on NOPRICE[66] then Sandy and Colin had left 2400+ word ‘updates’ under the RfC in which Sandy states, “...but don't mind if we mention relatively low cost in the body,”[67] and the conversation shifted to LEAD and WEIGHT without changing her opposed stance in the RfC above. Now, the insinuation is I’m a puppet for James after a thoughtful response to an RfC on a 13 word sentence.
  • This RfC[68][69] on lead structure resulted in no consensus in large part because every piece of opinion (from me at least) was met with walls of text. At one point, we had a chart of 7 aspects of the lead with 4 positions. Unless you were willing to argue 28 points, consensus was impossible without dedicating full-time to the RfC, in an effort to follow the arguments. I felt that I spent a ton of time on that one RfC and still added only 6% to the text. SG, on the other hand, monopolized 50%. Another example of walls of text from Colin and SG are here [70] where multiple editors appear frustrated by their conduct, “I've had enough of this garbage. I am now taking this page off of my watchlist. Do not ping me or ask me to come back. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)” or here [71], an RfC I purposely avoided knowing it would be an issue, and where 60% of the text is from WAID, SG or Colin.
  • This RfC[72] which asked for acceptable wording suggestions resulted in a 1,900 word (initial) response from Colin without offering a suggestion on wording then subsequent walls of text each time James posted.

Summary

I hope this helps explain why myself, Doc James, and many others choose to engage with quicker edits, revisions, talk, and RfCs where a decision is needed. Normal discourse, in certain circumstances, is nearly impossible when Talk page discussions are met with walls of text, whataboutism, and constant modifications to the target issue. This should be enjoyable for all, and I applaud the deep engagement of all involved to the Wiki movement, however the vilification of James is misplaced imo and the tactics used to dominate discussions is pushing editors to the sidelines. Ian Furst (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by {your user name}

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the first assertion; for example, your first 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.

{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=952310800"