Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence

The WPMED dispute erupted after the drug pricing RFC, but the tension has involved broader issues since at least 2012.

[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki_Project_Med&oldid=19967208 Wiki Project Med Foundation] (WPMEDF) is a [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_thematic_organizations&oldid=19919225 Wikimedia thematic organization] and an [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki_Project_Med/Projects&oldid=19861666#Advocacy_and_policy advocacy organization] with its own [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki_Project_Med/Board&oldid=19611155#Board_Members_(Mar_2019_-_Mar_2022) governing board] and [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki_Project_Med/Projects&oldid=19861666 projects, aims, applications and interests,] based upon Wikipedia content. It was [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki_Project_Med&diff=next&oldid=3926056 started in 2012] by, among others, Doc James and Bluerasberry. WPMEDF requires an [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki_Project_Med/Membership&oldid=19898263#Joining email address renewal every two years] and has [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki_Project_Med&oldid=19967208#Email_communication "frequent, ongoing internal communications via email".] Members must assert when re-applying biannually [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki_Project_Med/Membership&oldid=19898263#Joining that they support] the WPMEDF (advocacy) [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki_Project_Med&oldid=19967208#Mission mission.] The overall mission of WPMEDF aligns 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 others—have created the appearance of conflicts of interest as well as conflict with the wider community.

For example, one of [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki_Project_Med/Projects&oldid=19861666#Quality_control_and_peer_review WPMEDF's Projects] is an {{tq|... effort to get academic credit for contributing to Wikipedia.}} This desire for publication can put WPMEDF editors in conflict with overall aims of an encyclopedia anyone can edit, lend 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 content review processes.

These issues have placed some WPMEDF members in 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, who coincidentally are almost all Featured article writers. Longtime 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).

[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki_Project_Med/Board&oldid=19611155#Board_Members_(Mar_2019_-_Mar_2022) Current] and [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki_Project_Med/Board&oldid=18624181#Board_Members_(current_term:_Jan_2017_-_Dec_2018) 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

The WPMEDF project to journal publish has led to conflicts of interest. Bluerasberry [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=941648552 posted this study] for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_133&oldid=950265228#Situating_Wikipedia_as_a_health_information_resource:_review discussion at WT:MED,] where a potential conflict is seen: the article assessments being measured are often done by WPMEDF members who may support article assessments without reason, (Dyxlexia GA) or semi-protect the preferred version for purposes of publications (Excessive semi-protection).

• Bluerasberry posts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_drug&diff=674524266&oldid=674523372 about his interest in drug prices] per employment with Consumer Reports
• Doc James mentions [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=953082690#Other_collaborators WPMEDF collaborations with numerous organizations,] including the World Health Organization (WHO), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Center for Disease Control (CDC). James frequently prefers these sources over journal-published literature in articles ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=834237544&diff=prev#NIH_sourcing sample discussion here] about the problems at Dementia with Lewy bodies) even though MEDRS says such organizations {{tq|... have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature.}} This creates a problem for Featured articles, which should use the most authoritative sources.
• In July 2015, James mentioned that the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF):

::: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_69&oldid=852714033#Collaboration is "interested in working with us"] (in the context of other WPMEDF collaborations).

The fundamental conflict has arisen not with the goals of WPMEDF or the [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki_Project_Med/Projects&oldid=19861666 apps and projects themselves,] but in concerns about the accuracy of the medical content being pushed out via these apps, and the methods used to achieve these broad changes (which at times have been shown to compromise the integrity of English Wikipedia content). While the goals of spreading medical information to Lower and Middle Income Countries (LMIC) are laudable, concerns are that content spread to them should be accurate, timely and policy-compliant. The Osmosis videos, for example, had numerous errors, and could not be edited by anyone, and Wikipedia was used to further the commercial interests of a third party, rather than a community project that anyone could edit, yet were forced into the first sections of articles. Other examples on this Evidence page show that content on the English Wikipedia has been negatively impacted: that is the essence of the conflict.

• WPMED focus has shifted away from making sure the English Wikipedia has the best, most timely and most accurate medical information, to instead pushing information out the door via apps even when that information is shown dated or inaccurate. More focus on external apps has meant less focus on accuracy in overall content, and alienation of experienced editors.
• Similarly, disregard for accuracy and verifiability was shown when Osmosis videos were forced into articles-- even leads where Featured article writers had carefully curated the content for over a decade, only to find inaccurate and dated information added via videos that can't be edited
• The fait accompli was accomplished in each case with methods that at times appeared "stealth" or without regard for consensus-building, with poor use of edit summaries, edit warring, indications of tag-teaming, and with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=953543022#CFCF_engages_in_battlegound_intimidation_with_blunderbuss_accusations intimidation] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=953543022#CFCF_casts_aspersions_and_refuses_to_provide_diffs accusations] aimed at those who are critical of these approaches or who speak up about the problems.

Long-standing editors, concerned about the impact on English Wikipedia medical content have ended up a) retreating from medical editing, or b) on the receiving end of blunderbuss and bad-faith accusations when they speak up, and c) accused of "bludgeoning" because they fully engage dispute resolution, with policy-based reasoning, rather than by simply reverting their peers.{{pb}}

There have been broadly five areas of conflict, dating many years, in which one (occasionally two) editors—often editing too fast, rarely engaging talk (see Editcountitis section) and in topics where they are not experts—have installed controversial changes and personal preferences across hundreds to thousands of articles, and not always with full disclosure to other WPMED participants.

1. Re-ordering of sections of every medical article to a set order, although the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&oldid=951188097#Content_sections MEDMOS list is explicitly only a suggestion] for writing new articles or substantially rewriting existing articles. MEDMOS says: {{tq2|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.}}
2. :::* This wording [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=130567799&oldid=127942012 was accepted as a guideline in 2007,] based on consensus and review involving many editors.
3. Re-ordering the narrative of the lead in medical articles, although the accuracy and flow may be disrupted. Every condition/disease is different. But James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=953249918#General_audience re-ordered the leads of hundreds of articles] and THEN inserted wording into MEDMOS to reflect HIS practice. Fait accompli, reflected recently in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia/arch107&oldid=953176908#Can_the_Tourette_syndrome_lead_be_ordered_per_WP:MEDORDER? this discussion during] the March 3 mainpage appearance of Tourette syndrome.
4. :::* The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force/RTT(Simplified)L&oldid=614327045 earliest versions of the Simplified Leads] indicates this work began in February 2014, with articles like African trypanosomiasis,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_trypanosomiasis&oldid=595633881] which were not likely to be watched by many editors.
5. :::* By June 2016, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force/RTT(Simplified)L&oldid=725122086 hundreds of leads] had been converted to this format, and there was a specific emphasis on Emergency medicine (James' area of practice).
6. :::* On June 30, 2016, after having re-written hundreds of leads himself, James added the wording to MEDMOS: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=727687739&oldid=726681046 "It is also reasonable to have the lead introduce content in the same order as the body of the text"], with the edit summary "added common practice". The issues with James' common practice became a source of conflict as he expanded this effort outside of his area of knowledge.
7. Altering language in the leads of hundreds of articles according to James' personal notions of what words are more easily translated or that he finds difficult.
8. :::* These first three items appeared to be with the aim of using these tailored leads for external apps, with rewrites that contain weak prose, stubby sentences with poor flow, and that jump confusingly from one point to the next.
9. :::* In March 2018, Jytdog [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=830079179&oldid=827467032 inserted text about leads to MEDMOS] that does not use the word “required” and is generally in line with broader guidelines. But James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=prev&oldid=830117546 “adjusts”] to wording that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=next&oldid=830117546 I remove for discussion.]
10. ::::* Two weeks later, when defending the Osmosis videos that fail WP:V, James states that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Epilepsy&diff=832903725&oldid=832872512 "the lead just needs to be supported by the body of the text, it does not need inline references itself."]
11. ::::* A sample of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force/RTT/Simple_Asperger_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=709797060 James preferred wording is here.]
12. :::* A recurring issue (unheard) is attribution as required by Wikipedia. For example, most of the text at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT/Simple Asperger syndrome was written by User:Eubulides (before it was altered). It is forked without attribution to a short form, and then translated to other Wikipedias without attribution.
13. :::* Fait accompli, October 2019, James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=922753950&oldid=921468876 inserts wording at MEDMOS,] never having argued this case at any of the main, community-wide guideline pages (eg WP:LEAD or pages dealing with making language accessible).
14. Adding Osmosis videos to the first section of hundreds of articles (not to External links), amid concerns of COI and commercial motive, often with no edit summaries
15. :::* SarahSV explored the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_110#Claims_of_COI COI and profit motive,]
16. :::* and a preferential agreement that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Osmosis&diff=695704313&oldid=695584880 the external videos would be inserted in the first section of Wikipedia articles]
17. :::* All but four of these videos were added by James, with incomplete edit summaries.
18. Adding drug prices to leads, with concerns about deficits in core policies of verifiability, original research, weight, NOPRICE and the lead guideline (and to be used in the same leads tailored for apps). Evidence of the fait accompli provided in other Evidence on the page.
19. :::: Note, while he is adding drug prices to leads only, James has acknowledged at another article that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=713183167&diff=prev "the lead should not contain content not also in the body of the article."]

Adding VideoWiki vidoes (an evolving conflict): with demonstrated inaccuracies, and still hard to edit, these videos are being inserted into leads of articles (rather than as External links). The quality is still problematic, details are still being worked out, and yet they have been inserted into a couple dozen articles already. (See WTMED archive) This is the same pattern seen in the other five instances.

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=next&oldid=941159496 force behind advocacy] for inserting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=940283746&oldid=940281711 prices into pharmaceutical articles,] backed by James (WPMEDF), who inserted prices into [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Colin/PriceEdits&oldid=950498526 more than 500 articles], before, during and after a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_84#Price_of_medications 2016 RFC] that found no consensus for an exception to WP:NOT policy. Bluerasberry holds that the NOT policy [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=940283746&oldid=940281711 does not apply because it is 15 years old,] and that there was a plan for drug pricing content (emphasis added): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=940289921&oldid=940286729] {{tq2|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.}}

In 2019, it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Prices&oldid=941276999#Inappropriate_redirects discovered that Bluerasberry had altered redirects,] away from NOT policy and to an essay he created, in which he asserted an inaccurate statement:

• May 2009: {{u|Thumperward}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PRICE&oldid=291153041 created the redirect WP:PRICE,] pointing to WP:NOT
• September 2010: {{u|Eraserhead1}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PRICES&oldid=382906992 created the redirect Wikipedia:PRICES,] pointing to WP:NOT
• October 2015: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Prices&oldid=684270341 Bluerasberry created] the essay Wikipedia:PRICES with the false statement: {{tq|Wikipedia has no specific policy on presenting prices of products.}} At that time, WP:NOT read:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=684270704&oldid=681530995] {{tq2| An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is a source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers.}}
• October 2015: Bluerasberry [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PRICES&diff=next&oldid=382906992 changed the redirect of Wikipedia:PRICES to point to his essay].
• May 2016: Bluerasberry [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PRICE&diff=next&oldid=374482122 changed the redirect of Wikipedia:Price to point to his essay].
• November 2019: Trying to insert prices at IPhone 11 (along with QuackGuru), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IPhone_11&diff=918879317&oldid=918876925&diffmode=source James], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IPhone_11&diff=925499460&oldid=925452622&diffmode=source Ozzie], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IPhone_11&diff=925988515&oldid=925719007&diffmode=source Bluerasberry] all cite Bluerasberry's essay (with the false statement), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IPhone_11&diff=prev&oldid=926329123 Bluerasberry argues that policy] isn't really ... policy.
• The redirects to an inaccurate statement stood for over four years, until [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3APrices&type=revision&diff=933566788&oldid=933273847 I corrected it in January 2020.]

After a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&oldid=947923465#Query_the_admins discussion about pinging the editors who had been reverted] by James on drug price articles, Bluerasberry [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&oldid=947923465#Invited_WikiProject_Video_Games_to_comment canvassed the Video Game Project.][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&diff=941743365&oldid=941691621][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=942079802&oldid=942077127] Twenty-six editors editors who attempted to uphold policy were not pinged, while others were canvassed. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Colin/PriceEdits&oldid=950498526 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), {{ping|Pol098|Jorge Stolfi|Surtsicna|Gprobins|Jrfw51|Garzfoth|Pol098|Zefr|D A Patriarche|David notMD|Mparagas18}} and others.

At the Talk:Simvastatin RFC, Bluerasberry:

• Altered the Support votes to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simvastatin&diff=948927083&oldid=948904974 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, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simvastatin&diff=next&oldid=948927083 saying not to alter others' posts] and Bluerasberry [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simvastatin&diff=next&oldid=948927595 reverted,] leaving a misleading impression to RFC newcomers.

As all medical editors have a shared concern about the quality of medical content, tempers can flare, discussion can become heated, and some editors simmer up quickly (but then simmer down quickly as well), and we generally can go on to being able to work together and defend each other in spite of our disagreements. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James&diff=prev&oldid=947640698] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James&diff=948772557&oldid=948772550] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&diff=prev&oldid=561542325] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&diff=prev&oldid=895392372] But I have had a different experience with CFCF.

During the December 2019 ANI,

• CFCF lobbed a blunderbuss of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=929426097 fabrications about Colin,] without a single diff. After a series of adjustments, his [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=929428069 post ends up at this.]

::: These diffless fabrications include (but are not limited to)

:::# "does not respect WP:BRD"

:::# "massive issues with WP:CIVILITY"

:::# "unclear editing goals (WP:NOTHERE)"

:::# "often coming to issues which he lacks knowledge of"

:::# "acting by changing tens or even hundreds of articles at once, totally ignoring consensus”

:::# “disruptive per WP:POINTY. His style of editing is a danger to any collaborative work on this encyclopedia.”

• When questioned, CFCF declines to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=929430316 back up his accusations with diffs, but adds more to them] (always with excess markup to highlight his position).
• After being questioned again, I suggest CFCF [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=929509909 strike the falsehoods,] and remind him that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=929510329 his personal views are unsupported] (by diffs).
• CFCF again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=929581033 reiterates his position, without providing diffs.]
• I remind CFCF that he is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=929585369 casting aspersions.]
• See my evidence regarding Colin at Elitism and cultural changes at WPMED

A few weeks later, at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on lead guideline for medicine-related articles (the worst RFC ever formulated, thanks to moi), I experienced a similar blast of battleground behavioral accusations from CFCF, which I experienced as an attempt to intimidate. For launching an (admittedly malformed) RFC, and then trying to work towards consensus on talk (and we did achieve some consensus on talk), CFCF charges me with WP:Disruptive, WP:Gaming, WP:Deadhorse, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style%2FMedicine-related_articles%2FRFC_on_lead_guideline_for_medicine-related_articles&type=revision&diff=932996996&oldid=932996101] WP:bad faith, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and WP:ICANTHEARYOU. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style%2FMedicine-related_articles%2FRFC_on_lead_guideline_for_medicine-related_articles&type=revision&diff=932999498&oldid=932996101]

Barkeep49—adminning the WP:MEDMOS issues—[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_lead_guideline_for_medicine-related_articles&diff=933092162&oldid=933085762 did not see a problem in my actions.] {{pb}}

In November 2019, CFCF stated: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=928080275&oldid=928074940 "Colin — You really seem clueless here ... someone who is in far too deep water."]

During the 2018 Osmosis video discussions, CFCF said to editor Clayoquot, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=832872082 "this has been discussed extensively before this seems like conspiratorial thinking on your part in order to justify this inane discussion".]

Similar (labeling good-faith edits as "disruptive") was seen in edit summaries when CFCF restored some Osmosis videos that had been removed for failing verification: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autism&diff=prev&oldid=832939749] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asperger_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=832939785] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autism_spectrum&diff=prev&oldid=832940230]

During the March 2018 Osmosis video WT:MED discussions: CFCF

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=833256179 closes and archives an ongoing discussion] (with a misleading edit summary, "archival bug")
• which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=833262017 SarahSV] restores,
• and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=833267572 Francis Schonken] questions, and
• SarahSV [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=833270206 points out that CFCF] has a COI as an officer of WPMEDF, as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=833313981 does James,] and
• TenOfAllTrades remarks: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=833314090 saying,] "It is...problematic...that Doc James remains the current sole point of contact with Osmosis, and has taken upon himself the decision to terminate the collaboration with them. Bluntly, I have to ask—how did he assume the authority to estabish and terminate such relationships in the first place? While it is obvious from the ongoing RfC that the community objects strongly to the way that Wikipedia has been used as a marketing medium to build Osmosis' brand, and it is appropriate that we communicate that to Osmosis in no uncertain terms, it is also apparent that Doc James has not effectively assessed or understood the community's views over the last couple of years. Why is Doc James still holding himself out as Wikipedia's representative to Osmosis?"
• While Clayoquot remarks that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=833315759 CFCF has given no evidence the videos were based on Wikipedia leads,] in spite of multiple complaints, and
• CFCF [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=833330552 responds to his closing of the thread with,] “I wanted to get rid of this shit-storm from this page”.

Again, on 9 December 2019, in an ongoing discussion, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=929979467&oldid=929979226 CFCF installed a new, second-level header] that cut off my response from the section it was replying to and part of, and mischaracterized the dispute. I repaired and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=next&oldid=929998114 reminded CFCF.] But the behavior persists:

On 28 March, following the 27 March close of the drug pricing RFC, Colin starts a discussion at WT:MED [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=947828486&oldid=947793004 with a neutral heading,] "RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices". {{pb}} On 29 March

• 09:46 CFCF installs a non-neutral section heading [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=947947284 "This is the wrong time to be having this debate (COVID-19 pandemic)"] (impeding discussion and consensus building) while altering formatting on others' posts[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=947954988] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=947945876], obscuring who is responding to whom
• 14:30 I begin: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=947982433&oldid=947959302 to restore my response formatting,] and install neutral section headings to distinguish [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=947982433 implementation] from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=947985213 interpretation] (as disagreement over the RFC close is emerging), which CFCF characterizes as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=948002875 personalization when it was he who took a neutral heading personally,] remind CFCF [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=947999574 about non-neutral headings and excess markup in talk page posts] (that have the effect of highlighting one individual's views) and suggest a more neutral heading to his "Wrong time" section.
• 16:51 CFCF begins: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=948001451 removing my section heading,] which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Medicine&type=revision&diff=948001851&oldid=948001530 I restore,] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=948002491 CFCF changes.]
• 21:18 CFCF changes his “wrong timing” heading to a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=948037189 neutral heading] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=948042349 reasserts that "interpretation" is a personalized heading.]

Over an entire day, while multiple editors were trying to discuss timing, interpretation and implementation of the RFC conclusions, a good deal of time was wasted on restoring sections as CFCF attempts to control the narrative.

=== Doc James ===

Medical articles are often semi-protected—a practice that discourages editor recruitment and can result in outdated, inaccurate versions of articles. Leads only are maintained for the purposes of WPMEDF-inspired projects, with overall content stagnating. Medical Featured articles have seen once vibrant growth [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SandyGeorgia/FA_growth&oldid=951025540 flatline since 2015] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colin&diff=948736847&oldid=948274815#Asking_a_favor_of_your_time fall out of date,] as the focus of WPMED has moved towards off-en.Wikipedia projects and away from overall content improvement.

Semi-protection at times appears unnecessary. 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 imdefinitely semi-protected.

• Dengue fever {{icon|FA}} is an outdated Featured article (FAC nominator James). I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADengue_fever&type=revision&diff=943443916&oldid=943241496 questioned why the article was semi-protected] by James for “persistent vandalism” ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Dengue+fever Article log]). The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dengue_fever&action=history&offset=20130103211651 log link at that time] showed two IP edits—one [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dengue_fever&diff=531047598&oldid=530744465 good,] and one [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dengue_fever&diff=next&oldid=531047598 extremely minor instance vandalism.] After I queried, James removed semi-protection, and the article has done just fine. Semi-protection was not needed, the article was outdated, but semi-protection prevented IPs from editing for seven years.

::This over sized WPMEDF-project template was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dengue_fever&diff=942387888&oldid=942194659#References 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 place it in the reference section, rather than External links.

• Gastroenteritis {{icon|GA}}, a James GA, and its [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Gastroenteritis article log], protected by James for "persistent vandalism" and "poor quality edits". The history link for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gastroenterits&action=history&offset=20130225232116 the latest protection] shows, in the two months prior; the IP insertion of a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gastroenteritis&diff=531201274&oldid=530565609 good faith valid term that is nonetheless not-MEDRS-sourceable,] but added to Society and culture, where MEDRS sources are not typically required; one instance of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gastroenteritis&diff=535766011&oldid=534963078 minor vandalism], and one [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gastroenteritis&diff=540388350&oldid=539104175 good faith IP edit.]

• Gout {{icon|GA}}, a James GA, and its [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Gout article log,] protected by James, no reason given. At the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gout&action=history&offset=20120127235841 time of protection,] the month prior saw an edit that was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gout&diff=470680469&oldid=470434170 good faith but not reliably sourced] [https://www.hindawi.com/journals/criu/2012/594905/]; ^{See Update in response section} another [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gout&diff=471279034&oldid=470682184 good faith but not reliably sourced edit;] [https://pdf.hres.ca/dpd_pm/00013673.PDF] a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gout&diff=prev&oldid=471948319 valid IP edit;] one [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gout&diff=next&oldid=472187990 IP removal of cited text;] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gout&diff=473600864&oldid=473444409 one instance of vandalism] that was oddly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gout&diff=next&oldid=473600864 self-reverted by the same IP.] No indication for semi-protection.

• Hepatitis C {{icon|GA}}, a January 2012 James GA, protected in June 2012 (never before semi-protected) by James with the reason "Persistent vandalism: High quality article subject to lots of vandalism." The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hepatitis_C&action=history&offset=20120609095455 history log] at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Hepatitis+C time of semi-protection] shows [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hepatitis_C&diff=496718697&oldid=496718670 a good faith IP edit,] that was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hepatitis_C&diff=496718635&oldid=496718363 twice] Huggle reverted; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hepatitis_C&diff=prev&oldid=496454450 minor IP vandalism] that was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hepatitis_C&diff=next&oldid=496454450 reverted by another IP;] and an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hepatitis_C&diff=496230033&oldid=495979898 IP edit that is difficult to be viewed as vandalism] because IPs may be unaware of MOS:CURRENT.

• Schistosomiasis, B-class, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Schistosomiasis semi-protected by FloNight], who was a [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki_Project_Med/Board&oldid=17590153 WPMEDF board member at the time], for "persistent disruptive editing" against good faith IP edits during an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schistosomiasis&action=history&offset=20160309211014 edit war with James.]

On July 14, 2009, James was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Jmh649_restricted restricted by Arbcom for editwarring.]

On July 25, 2009, he was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=block&user=&page=User%3ADoc+James&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers blocked for 48 hours for editwarring in breach of that restriction.] This is his only block for editwarring. His edit warring has never abated; some samples:

• March 2020 edit war at Simvastatin is documented in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=952308328#Timeline_of_MOS_Dispute Barkeep's evidence.]

• In November 2019, Kashmiri and James editwarred at Onasemnogene abeparvovec. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_159&oldid=932467276#November_2019 reminded them both not to template the regulars,] and knowing that James would not be blocked, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=926958030&oldid=926957267 submitted a request for article protection]. User:Ivanvector [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Onasemnogene_abeparvovec&oldid=948099122#Edit_warring warned them both to slow down.] The editwar [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Onasemnogene_abeparvovec&diff=next&oldid=924622766 began when James adjusted the lead to match the order of the body of the article] (a personal preference). It included [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Onasemnogene_abeparvovec&diff=next&oldid=926743304 removal of alternate names from the lead,] and an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Onasemnogene_abeparvovec&diff=next&oldid=926747314 appearance by QuackGuru.] Discussion occurs on talk,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Onasemnogene_abeparvovec&oldid=948099122#Adverse_effects_and_side_effects] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Onasemnogene_abeparvovec&oldid=948099122#Obscure_names] including a {{highlight|"per Doc James" Ozzie10aaaa|orange}} support, absent reasoning, with James' concluding two-to-one "Kashmiri you obviously do not have consensus for this."

• In September 2019, 2019, with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive396#User%3ADoc_James_reported_by_User%3A81.35.37.251_%28Result%3A_No_action%29 significant edit warring over language in the lead], Includimg an {{highlight|"agree with Doc James" Ozzie10aaaa|orange}} support, providing no other rationale, that ends with no action.

• 2019 at Ivermectin, long-running [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Colin/PriceEdits&oldid=950498526#Ivermectin edit war] with {{highlight|support from Ozzie10aaaa|orange}} and QuackGuru.

::: In a dispute with Ronz/Hipal,

::: 04:01, September 19, 2019 James remarks [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ivermectin&diff=916482983&oldid=916357857 "So basically we have one opinion in each direction"]

::: 01:03, September 27, 2019 Ozzie appears [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ivermectin&diff=next&oldid=918096916#Price to "agree w/ Doc James"]

::: 01:08, September 27, 2019 After {{highlight|four reverts by James}}, {{highlight|Ozzie reverts|orange}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivermectin&diff=918098693&oldid=918083374 to James version]

::: 16:48, September 27, 2019 Ronz/Hipal [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivermectin&diff=next&oldid=918123360 undoes Ozzie's edit]

::: 17:50, September 29, 2019 James says, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ivermectin&diff=next&oldid=918641199 "Ronz the majority of people commenting here disagree with you,"]

::: September 30, 2019 James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivermectin&type=revision&diff=918874005&oldid=918229049 reinserts price data in a series of edits.]

:: Before {{highlight|Ozzie adds an "agree w/ Doc James"|orange}} (providing no policy-based rationale), there was no consensus.

• 2018: Only three reverts, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive366#User%3ADoc_James_reported_by_User%3AVitreology_%28Result%3A_both_editors_warned%29 so both warned.]

• 2017: Five reverts at Cholecalciferol (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=952308328#Doc_James_reverts_and_edit_wars_on_drug_prices Colin's evidence section] for diffs)

• 2017: A mess, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive353#User%3ADoc_James_reported_by_User%3A92.194.54.218_%28Result%3A_Protected%29 both warned]

• 2015: Significant edit warring, appearance by QuackGuru and Ozzie10aaaa, result is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive290#User%3ADoc_James_and_User%3ACorporateM_%28Result%3A_Protected%29 page protection]

• 2014: e-cigs again, with an appearance from QuackGuru, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive260#User%3ADoc_James_reported_by_User%3AAlbinoFerret_%28Result%3A_Both_warned%29 both warned]

• 2013: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive229#User%3A_IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker_reported_by_User%3AJmh649_%28Result%3A_IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker_blocked_for_24_hours%2C_Jmh649_warned%29 James warned]

• 2011: Only three reverts, so [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive167#User%3AJmh649_reported_by_User%3ADessources_%28Result%3A_no_vio%29 ruled no violation]

• 2011: Although James editwarred, the other editor had more reverts than James, so [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive164#User%3AJmh649_reported_by_User%3AGarycompugeek%28Result%3A_Protected%29 page protected.]

James and Ozzie10aaaa have installed a set order of sections in every medical article, even though [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&oldid=951188097#Content_sections MEDMOS says:] {{tq2|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.}} Casliber is a practicing psychiatrist and prolific FA writer. I pinged him to the schizophrenia talk page in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Schizophrenia&oldid=950059921#FA_issues December 2019 because the article had fallen out of compliance with FA standards.] {{pb}} After Cas re-ordered the sections in the article to a narrative that he held better worked for the topic, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schizophrenia&diff=prev&oldid=934580358 James reverted] in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schizophrenia&diff=next&oldid=934580123 several edits] without the courtesy of discussing with Cas. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schizophrenia&diff=next&oldid=934580358 I reverted.] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schizophrenia&diff=next&oldid=934581004 James reverted again.]{{pb}} Yet another WPMED RFC is held, and found the suggested order of sections should not be altered, but a practicing psychiatrist and prolific FA writer surely knows how to structure an article on schizophrenia.

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. {{pb}}I have followed Down syndrome intermittently since its 2006 WP:FAC and 2010 WP:FAR.

{{cot|Diffs of extended edit war and first appearances by editors to dispute}}

• 19 February First {{highlight|James revert:}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=941599855 Moves variations to infobox.]
• 19 February Jenny Jankel argues that Down vs. Down's is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=941641845 not a minor spelling difference.]
• 19 February {{highlight|James reverts}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=941658518 for the second time]

:::01:39 20 February James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Down_syndrome&diff=941679284&oldid=941679100 initiates talk discussion]

• 16:03 25 February Janny Jankel [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=941883789 reverts for second time]
• 00:09 26 February {{highlight|James reverts}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=942586363 third time]

:::00:25 26 February, after considerable back and forth with both Jenny Jankel and Chaheel Riems disagreeing with James, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Down_syndrome&diff=942652525&oldid=942651922 Ozzie enters] an "agree w/ Doc James".

::: This is Ozzie's first appearance at Down syndrome, except for a year earlier, when he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=830869157&diff=prev installed the personal preference] for order of sections—another ongoing area of conflict

:::: 13:52 26 February, Jenny Jenkel mentions the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Down_syndrome&diff=942730413&oldid=942730298 history between Ozzie and James]

::::: 17:39 27 February, James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=942853377 responds,] "we have a history of being the two most prolific medical editors on English Wikipedia"

:::::: Jenny observes the trend seen elsewhere, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Down_syndrome&diff=945230669&oldid=945230273 "If you could ever actually produce your own rationale, maybe that would help."]

• 12:17 29 February Jenny Jankel installs an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=942650735 improved version,] using the 's
• 17:38 29 February {{highlight|James reverts}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=943191707 with edit summary "Yup say it"]

::: 17A:49 29 February James (who misinterprets voting as consensus) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=943229764 notes three-to-two]

• 22:10 3 March Jenny Jankel [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=943726839 reinstates]
• 22:45 3 March {{highlight|James reverts}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=943783831 Twinkle]
• 22:53 3 March James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=943789554 removes alternates to a Note]
• 03:17 4 March User:Chaheel Riens [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=943790119 reverts James]

::: 07:56 4 March Chaheel Riens [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Down_syndrome&diff=943856930&oldid=943832835 starts a proposal] on talk

• 10:37 11 March Chaheel Riens [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=944491561 installs talk proposal] which moves the "long" alternates to the infobox, but keeps the UK name and Jenny Jenkel [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=945023154 MOS adjusts]

:::02:05 12 March, with three against his preference, James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=945142110#Proposal pings Ozzie]

• 02:14 12 March {{highlight|James reverts}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=945023629 to earlier version]
• 10:06 12 March Jenny Jenkel [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=945142038 restores] with edit summary, "there is clear consensus for this change" and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=945185416 adds back the note]
• 15:02 12 March {{highlight|James}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=945190643 reverts]
• 15:30 12 March Chaheel Riens [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=945216050 reverts James]
• 15:34 12 March {{highlight|James}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=945219904 reverts Chaheel]
• 16:44 12 March Jenny Jankel [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=945220445 reverts James] with edit summary "there was a week-long discussion, in which clear consensus was achieved"
• 16:59 12 March {{highlight|Ozzie|orange}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=945229671 reverts Jenny Jankel]

::: 04:02 13 March Flyer22 Frozen appears to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Down_syndrome&diff=945312256&oldid=945240017 add a "per Doc James"] support, in Flyer's first-ever appearance at Down syndrome

• 00:07 23 March Hippo43 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=946885204 installs apostrophe] with edit summary "common alternative name"
• 20:24 23 March {{highlight|James}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=946885204 reverts] with edit summary "start an RFC"

::: 20:30 23 March having failed to gain consensus for his personal preference (even with Ozzie and Flyer support), James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=947021700 starts an "either-or", "mine or theirs" RFC]

::: 18:53 25 March, with three-to-two against James, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Down_syndrome&diff=947343310&oldid=947282913 CFCF supports James] in CFCF's first-ever engagement with Down syndrome

• 21:34 26 March Hippo43 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=947021588 reverts]
• 19:50 27 March {{highlight|James}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=947530021 reverts]

::: 00:38 28 March Flyer22 Frozen: with James failing to gain consensus [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=947515374#RfC_on_the_first_part_of_the_first_sentence agrees with James]

• 21:29 29 March Hippo43 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=947673266 reverts]
• 21:31 29 March Chaheel Riens [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=948044093 adds back] a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=948044375 different version]

{{cob}}

James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Down_syndrome&oldid=951294883#RfC_on_the_first_part_of_the_first_sentence never had consensus,] yet edit warred ten times to install a personal preference. When that failed, he started an RFC, and reinforcements who have either never before engaged the article or enter little reasoning to support their position, appear and support "per Doc James"; in this case, Ozzie, CFCF and Flyer22 Reborn.

At the Ethosuximide RFC, the closing admins had been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&diff=949509050&oldid=949506451 pinged] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=948178365&oldid=948177935 twice] to clarify, but James interprets the RFC conclusion as applying to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&diff=949333469&oldid=949333425 "numerical" prices only, and repings the admins for a third clarification] after they had just been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&diff=949330071&oldid=949329441 pinged by WhatamIdoing.] Wugapodes responds: {{tq| "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."}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&diff=949730563&oldid=949710104]

After Wugapodes clarified the RFC findings, James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEthosuximide&type=revision&diff=949523722&oldid=949520261 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.

WP:MEDLEAD has long been disputed. I started a December 2019 RFC on MEDLEAD, which was a well-and-good disaster, malformed by me, made worse by my attempts to fix it mid-stream—which I have many times acknowledged. I learned a lesson there from WhatamIdoing, who then asked WPMED editors to hold off on any more RFCs umtil the Drug pricing RFC concluded. Nonetheless, in spite of some blunderbuss by others at the MEDLEAD RFC, RexxS, Ian Furst and I achieved some compromise on talk.{{pb}} After the inconclusive close of the MEDLEAD RFC, and during the drug pricing RFC, with pleas by WAID to hold off on further action, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/Archive_11&oldid=934541990 talk page bot archived the dispute discussion on the MEDLEAD RFC.] And yet, James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=950616026&oldid=950454078 removed the disputed tag from MEDLEAD], stating that there was no ongoing discussion. We subsequently made progress and seem to be at a position of some tentative consensus, but a more collegial approach would have been to un-archive the ongoing discussion, or raise the matter on talk; the dispute was clearly ongoing, but had been archived by the talk page bot.

At times, it appears that James is editing too fast, and fails to grasp or fully engage issues of source-to-text integrity. This occurred several times during the formulation of the RFC, as we were searching for an example of otherwise-policy-compliant (V, WEIGHT, NPOV, OR) drug price text that could be presented in the RFC for the LEAD and NOT question. (We never could find an example.) In trying to sort through this, and understand how James had generated the price data in over 500 articles, it was never apparent that James was following the issue (one sample). This resulted in having to repeat things to James, which then leads to the "bludgeoning" charge.{{pb}}Similar occurred at Talk:Pyrimethamine. I laid out [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pyrimethamine&oldid=948895979#Multiple_problems multiple problems] with source-to-text integrity and the correct use of sources (for example, press releases), but after extended discussion between James, Hipal/Ronz and myself, it is not clear that James ever understood the questions or issues, while Hipal and I both understood each other.{{pb}} Similar occurred in the Dementia with Lewy bodies examples I described at the Lead restructuring section. In that example, James did not seem to be following the sourcing problem, and instead reverted to an old source to support his text.{{pb}} I do not know if these issues occur because James edits too fast, or if he is just not accustomed to the kinds of sourcing issues that come up outside of MEDRS, with regular RS; I know that it can take a lot of typing to communicate with James, which puts the "bludgeon" charge in context.

WP:MEDORG states that (emphasis mine):[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)&oldid=948846786#Medical_and_scientific_organizations]

{{tq2|Guidelines and position statements provided by major medical and scientific organizations are important on Wikipedia because they present recommendations and opinions that many caregivers rely upon (or may even be legally obliged to follow). Guidelines by major medical and scientific organizations sometimes clash with one another (for example, the World Health Organization and American Heart Association on salt intake), which should be resolved in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Guidelines do not always correspond to best evidence, but instead of omitting them, reference the scientific literature and explain how it may differ from the guidelines. ... Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the National Academy of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. The reliability of these sources ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature.}}

WP:MEDSCI states that (emphasis mine):[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)&oldid=948846786#Summarize_scientific_consensus] {{tq2|Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not publishing original research demand that we present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, in statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies (for example, the European Society of Cardiology or the Infectious Disease Society of America) and widely respected governmental and quasi-governmental health authorities (for example, AHRQ, USPSTF, NICE, and WHO), in textbooks, or in some forms of monographs. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. Additionally, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported. Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers.}}

WPMEDF has a collaboration with WHO. James at times has shown a preference for using WHO (a WPMEDF partner) as a source rather than weighing all sources as encouraged by NPOV, and considering the underlying medical literature as more authoritative.

; Sample: WHO at Hearing loss.

• While James insists on using WHO as a source, several others explain that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hearing_loss#Prevention_efforts_from_WHO better sources are likely available.]

: Note: Featured article Dengue fever also relies heavily on WHO, rather than the underlying literature. Overreliance on NIH sources (another partner) is discussed in the Lead structuring section on Dementia with Lewy bodies.

; Sample: USPSTF at prostate cancer

Prostate cancer screening is a highly controversial topic, where content warrants careful exploration of what the literature and various scientific organizations and bodies support in their screening guidelines. In July 2015, James mentioned a possible [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_69&oldid=852714033#Collaboration collaboration with the USPSTF].

In 2018, my husband was diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer and missed the opportunity for early detection--because his doctor followed the dated USPSTF guidelines-- when I discovered that all of Wikipedia's prostate-cancer-related articles were outdated. Following MEDSCI and MEDORG guidelines, and NPOV and DUE policies, I replaced text based on a dated 2012 source to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prostate_cancer_screening&diff=prev&oldid=825865661 reflect multiple position statements of various organizations updated to 2018.] (The USPSTF had had to back off of their dated position, as it was shown to lead to increased cases of advanced prostate cancer.) Although I had provided policy and MEDRS-compliant and timely sources that reflect all POVs and positions held by various scientific and medical organizations, I was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prostate_cancer_screening&diff=next&oldid=825865661 reverted by James.] After very few edits to the articles, I voluntarily backed out of any further editing to that suite of articles because of my COI and personal involvement, even though my edits were correct and policy-compliant.

• Prostate cancer screening today [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prostate_cancer_screening&oldid=951045132#Prostate-specific_antigen preferences the USPSTF view,] and mentions no others.
• Prostate-specific antigen today [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prostate_cancer_screening&oldid=951045132#Prostate-specific_antigen preferences the USPSTF view] over other views.
• Prostate cancer today [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prostate_cancer&oldid=952280749#Screening is much improved,] but still does not link to the correct American Urological Association [https://www.auanet.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer-early-detection-guideline guidelines] or include guidelines such as the [https://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostate-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/acs-recommendations.html American Cancer Society] or the [https://www.medscape.com/answers/458011-171567/what-are-the-nccn-guidelines-on-prostate-cancer-screening National Comprehensive Cancer Network] and others.

The entire suite of articles is preferencing the USPSTF view over others.{{pb}} It is distasteful that, while most editors understood that I was upset after my husband was diagnosed with advanced cancer that could have been detected earlier, CFCF has chosen to introduce this two-year-old issue to evidence. This is an example of why I say my experience with CFCF is different than my experience with other medical editors, who sometimes simmer up, but then simmer down again quickly. It was particularly disturbing during that upsetting time that Jytdog threatened to have me topic banned even though I had already voluntarily stopped editing the suite of articles after very few edits. {{pb}}The articles do not correctly reflect the body of literature nor the positions of all organizations even today, and that is what Wikipedia should do on a controversial topic. If this is how a knowledgeable, MEDRS-compliant, experienced editor’s sourced content is treated, imagine the treatment the average editor gets from medical editors. This is a serious issue on Wikipedia, where we should explore the topic rather than present one view only, and yet the messenger was shot and threatened with a topic ban, while we reflect generally one position only-- that of the USPSTF.

As demonstrated at Ivermectin, Simvastatin, and Down syndrome, Ozzie10aaaa frequently backs James in editwars and 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=%22concur+w%2FDoc+James%22+Ozzie10aaaa&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%22fields%22%3A%7B%22phrase%22%3A%22%5C%22concur+w%2FDoc+James%5C%22%22%2C%22or%22%3A%5B%22Ozzie10aaaa%22%5D%7D%7D&ns1=1]
• Agree w/ Doc James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=%22agree+w%2F+Doc+James%22+Ozzie10aaaa&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%22fields%22%3A%7B%22phrase%22%3A%22%5C%22agree+w%2F+Doc+James%5C%22%22%2C%22or%22%3A%5B%22Ozzie10aaaa%22%5D%7D%7D&ns1=1]
• Agree w/ DocJames [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=%22agree+w%2F+DocJames%22+Ozzie10aaaa&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%22fields%22%3A%7B%22phrase%22%3A%22%5C%22agree+w%2F+DocJames%5C%22%22%2C%22or%22%3A%5B%22Ozzie10aaaa%22%5D%7D%7D&ns1=1]

Analysis of a small portion of James–Ozzie intersecting contribs is at User:SandyGeorgia/Editor interaction. James encounters a dispute on an article where OZ has never before engaged, Ozzie10aaaa is there quickly, not 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.

In other MEDMOS discussions, Ozzie similarly supports James without providing reasoning.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=934609840&oldid=934609654#Oppose]

Content from User:SandyGeorgia/Editor interaction, added Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

{{cot|title= Analysis of a small portion of James–Ozzie intersecting contribs}}

Ozzie10aaaa 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=%22concur+w%2FDoc+James%22+Ozzie10aaaa&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%22fields%22%3A%7B%22phrase%22%3A%22%5C%22concur+w%2FDoc+James%5C%22%22%2C%22or%22%3A%5B%22Ozzie10aaaa%22%5D%7D%7D&ns1=1]
• Agree w/ Doc James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=%22agree+w%2F+Doc+James%22+Ozzie10aaaa&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%22fields%22%3A%7B%22phrase%22%3A%22%5C%22agree+w%2F+Doc+James%5C%22%22%2C%22or%22%3A%5B%22Ozzie10aaaa%22%5D%7D%7D&ns1=1]
• Agree w/ DocJames [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=%22agree+w%2F+DocJames%22+Ozzie10aaaa&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%22fields%22%3A%7B%22phrase%22%3A%22%5C%22agree+w%2F+DocJames%5C%22%22%2C%22or%22%3A%5B%22Ozzie10aaaa%22%5D%7D%7D&ns1=1]

A typical, recent example is here.{{pb}}

Looking at [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Doc+James&users=Ozzie10aaaa&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=Talk&server=enwiki&allusers=on considerable specific instances of overlapping edits for talk pages only],

• I stopped at the 20-minute interaction mark, but there is more
• I left out 2020 articles, as attention shifted to pandemic, and most of the 2020 examples are evidenced in other evidence sections (Down syndrome, simvastatin, ethosuximide for example).
• I left out 2014, as this trend became exacerbated in 2015.
• Interactions excluded: GA reviews ( Talk:Dyslexia Talk:Dyslexia/GA2); article assessment only (Talk:Pedobarography, Talk:Scedosporiosis); no dispute (Talk:Muscular dystrophy, Talk:Sudden cardiac death- OZ was assessing article, Talk:Ebola virus disease—Oz is engaged at this article), Talk:Active Release Technique; detailed in other evidence (Talk:Ethosuximide); not 2015 to 2019 ( Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019, Talk:Social distancing, Talk:Western African Ebola virus epidemic, Talk:Ebola virus cases in the United States).

This analysis does not cover actual article edits by James reinforced by Ozzie reverts (also pointed out in other evidence), or instances, such as pointed out in James’ edit warring section, where Ozzie weighs in at AN3, or instances at ANI.

The pattern is, 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 instances, while DJ had a long history at each article, OZ had no prior engagement, and only appears when DJ encounters conflict. {{pb}} OZ disagreed with James in two instances.

{{cob}}

At times, Ozzie appears unclear what he is reverting or why, or whether he has engaged and digested the discussion. At Talk:Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=887025368&diff=prev#Section_deleted_with_comment_%22source_poor%22 this discussion] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&oldid=897202357#RfC_regarding_summary_of_one_theory this RFC] a relatively inexperienced user, User:Thomas pow s, attempts to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James&diff=prev&oldid=887107010#Reverted_your_edit discuss with James.] (It appears to have been a good faith discussion on Thomas' part, met with stonewalling, contradictory information, and Ozzie intervention.)

{{cot|title= Article and talk interaction at Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome}}

• 20:23, March 7, 2019 Thomas [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=886679316&oldid=878896132 adds text] cited to a [https://www.amazon.com/Headache-Pelvis-Wise-Anderson-Protocol-Definitive-ebook/dp/B074LSZHZ5/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=A+Headache+in+the+pelvis&qid=1587332547&sr=8-1 dubious source.]
• 09:06, March 8, 2019 {{highlight|James}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=886741579 reverts,] edit summary, "source is poor"
• 18:35, March 8, 2019 Thomas [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=886755269 reverts,] edit summary, "How is the source poor? One of the authors is a leading researcher in this area at Stanford. See talk."

:::: 23:21, March 8, 2019 Thomas starts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=886852026 talk discussion,] saying the source is {{tq|... a reliable secondary source ... written by one of the leading researchers in this area at Stanford University [about] a major theory of CPPS causation which was scarcely mentioned in the page until now. ... There are other theories of causation in the article now [with] little or no academic support. If we delete this section, then the most prominent and well-supported theories of causation will be removed from the article when fringe or unsupported theories remain. The reliable sources policy appears to favor citing secondary sources, which is why I included that one. WP:MEDRS does not stipulate that the source must be a primary source.}}

• 04:33, March 9, 2019 {{highlight|James}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=886816243 reverts,] moving to talk

::: 04:35 March 9, 2019 James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=886884619 moves text to talk] saying the book is not a medical textbook

• 05:58, March 9, 2019 Thomas [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=886884432 reverts]
• 06:06, March 9, 2019 {{highlight|James}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=886891625 reverts]

:::: 06:07, March 9, 2019 James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=886892292 responds with] "you need to use proper sources and get consensus."

• 06:12, March 9, 2019 Thomas [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=886892412 reverts] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=886892617 adds an additional source], a MEDRS-compliant meta-analysis and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=886911631 publisher detail on book.]

:::: 06:17, March 9, 2019 In a long post, Thomas [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=886892292 points out that James has not answered his questions,] again asks for clarification, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=886892968 says the article is full of fringe theories.]

:::: 06:29 March 9, 2019 James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=886893850 responds with,] {{tq|As the person who wishes to add the content in question, you need to come forwards with a decent reference. You have not done so. You have not even supplied sufficient details in the current reference to verify it.}}

:::: 06:33, March 9, 2019 James (with three reverts) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thomas_pow_s&diff=886894194&oldid=886892228 warns Thomas about edit warring]

:::: 06:34, March 9, 2019 James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=886893989 adds (without answering the questions)] about sourcing, {{tq|You need to use proper references per WP:MEDRS.}}

:::: 06:39 March 9, 2019 Thomas says [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=886894285 let's take it one step at a time,] trying to understand why the source is not reliable, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=886894529 says that James] is {{tq|“offering flippant responses, while not responding at all to what was just said to you. If I included a bunch of primary sources as well, as per above, would that be acceptable to you?}}

:::: 08:06, March 9, 2019 Further discussion of the meta-analysis added, with James concluding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=886901134 "that source is much better".]

:::: 10:02, March 9, 2019 Thomas asks if he should [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=886910864 include the book as well as the meta-analysis:] RexxS responds [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=886910864 affirmatively.]

But Ozzie failed to engage that discussion:

• 11:46, March 9, 2019 {{highlight|Ozzie|orange}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=886912311 reverts,] "agree w/ Doc James"
• 11:56, March 9, 2019 {{highlight|Ozzie|orange}} restores, ten minutes later, as he somehow realizes he has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=886921573 reverted a meta-analysis.]

:::: 12:02, March 9, 2019 Ozzie belatedly enters talk for the first time ever, with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=886913666 agree w/ Doc James on Meta/analysis.]

:::: More talk ensues, with Thomas trying to get clarification from James and Ozzie.

• 22:12, March 9, 2019 Thomas expands [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=886921573 with the meta-analysis] and makes several copyedits.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=886992596] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=886992596] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=886992747] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=886995903]

:::: 03:11, March 10, 2019 James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=887024860 disagrees with the advice RexxS gave previously] about the book

• 03:14, March 10, 2019 {{highlight|James}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=887024883 reverts,] moving to talk
• 03:22, March 10, 2019 James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=887025133 cuts primary source material,] when [https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/4109235/file/6801624.pdf the text might have been repaired to reliable sources]
• 06:53, March 11, 2019 James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=887206698 cuts more primary source text,] that also [https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/4109235/file/6801624.pdf might have been repaired to reliable sources]

:::: Ratel [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=887025368 pointed this out,] as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=887045771 does Thomas.]

:::: 07:28 March 10, 2019 Thomas [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=887047142 again attempts to get less than terse responses from James] asking [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=887047758 several questions] about sourcing.

:::: 19:49 March 10, 2019 WhatamIdoing attempts to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=887063144 help Thomas format the book citation]

:::: 22:45, March 11, 2019 Thomas points out that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=887208156 James is misquoting him,] and says more people need to get involved.

• 09:08, March 14, 2019 Thomas [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=887208078 reinserts original material,] per talk
• 09:16, March 14, 2019 Thomas [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=887705554 moves the material] to a more specific section of Causes
• 09:30, March 14, 2019 {{highlight|James}} reverts, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=887705694]

:::: 09:56, March 14, 2019 much discussion later, Thomas [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=887708292 still trying to understand James' objections]

• 11:56, March 14, 2019 James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=887715122 adjusts]

:::: 14:45, March 14, 2019 Ozzie agrees with Doc James that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=887719942#Additional_primary_source_for_the_pelvic_floor_muscular_section primary sources should not be added] (in a case that is not at all clear that the primary sources would not be helpful when added to secondary sources)

• 20:30, March 14, 2019 Thomas [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=887723236 rewords] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=887784730 copyedits]
• 08:01, March 15, 2019 {{highlight|James}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=887835933 reverts,] calling it "adjust"
• 09:41, March 15, 2019 Thomas [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=887855507 notes the previous was a revert] and undoes
• 10:17, March 15, 2019 {{highlight|James}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=887863031 reverts,] but then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=887866435 self-reverts,] "will wait for RFC"

:::: 10:22, March 15, 2019 James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=887866642 launches RFC] and more of same continues for weeks.

• 21:14, April 5, 2019 Ratel [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=890088977 installs modified version.]
• 00:49, April 7, 2019 Ratel [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=891222286 changes again.]
• 13:07, May 15, 2019 Thryduulf [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome&diff=897202357&oldid=894908118 closes RFC]

{{cob}}

After what looks like an excruciating encounter for a relatively new user, some content that could have been sourced was cut, and some theories were added because of this editor's persistence. This editor is gone.

In December 2019, during a long back-and-forth between James and Colin, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&type=revision&diff=928955269&oldid=928950820&diffmode=source James asked Colin to stop pinging him.] (This could be interpreted to mean pinging only to that discussion.) There was no comment about the pingie-thingie from other editors who were participating in the discussion, nor any request on Colin's talk; Colin initially refused to accept this request. {{pb}} Less than three days later—having made no attempt to address or resolve or clarify the "pinging" matter on talk directly with Colin, and in spite of multiple instances of previous reminders to do just that—Ozzie escalated the incident in an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=929317687 ANI about Colin.] (Colin agreed not to ping James anymore as soon as that was requested on the ANI.) At ANI, grudges came out of the woodwork, with many editors taking the opportunity to lodge baseless allegations about Colin.{{pb}} Ozzie has a history of problems in this area: May 2015 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=663536171&diff=prev#ANI reminder from several to discuss first]; June 2015 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#Ozzie10aaaa_competence_on_medical_topics concerns about Ozzie10aaaa's editing raised at ANI]; July 2015 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=672640582#User:CFCF_reported_by_Ozzie10aaaa_(Result:_No_blocks._Discussion_returned_to_WPMED) Ozzie brought a most odd AN3]; March 2017 reminder [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ozzie10aaaa&diff=prev&oldid=885559567#I_understand(Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine)/(med_wikiproject)^ "to fully understand the issues involved, before taking a side ... and read through the arguments and examples, and them vote"]; and April 2018 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_August&diff=prev&oldid=833583091 reminder to speak directly to the editor] before escalating.

Ozzie has some difficulties editing complex topics:

• April 2017 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Complement_deficiency&type=revision&diff=777339030&oldid=776708962 another editor corrects an obvious article inaccuracy,] and Ozzie [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Complement_deficiency&diff=next&oldid=777339030 reverts the good faith edit], so the inaccuracy stands until [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Complement_deficiency&diff=817860957&oldid=817859156 another editor makes the same correction eight months later.]
• At the same article, an IP [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Complement_deficiency&diff=next&oldid=777347479 removes nonsensical text about "prevent cells",] which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Complement_deficiency&diff=next&oldid=788693640 Ozzie reinstates,] while [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Complement_deficiency&diff=next&oldid=788694143 another editor corrects,] explaining in edit summary that there is no such thing as "prevent cells"-- the intended meaning was stops cells from.
• In January 2019, an editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hypocalcaemia&diff=prev&oldid=877613395 adds a citation needed to Hypocalcaemia] sourcing the text to the National Organization for Rare Disorders. Ozzie [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hypocalcaemia&diff=next&oldid=877613395 removes the MEDRS-compliant citation.] After [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ozzie10aaaa&oldid=952867961#NORD/(wikiproject_med)^ consulting with James,] he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hypocalcaemia&diff=next&oldid=877622222 reinstates the correct citation.] For someone who frequently enforces MEDRS, he appears not to understand MEDRS.
• In May 2019, Ozzie tells an editor that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ozzie10aaaa&oldid=952867961#CPVT_order_of_sections_Catecholaminergic_polymorphic_ventricular_tachycardia_/(wikiproject_med)^ section order "should always be followed"] and an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catecholaminergic_polymorphic_ventricular_tachycardia&diff=899395701&oldid=899331709 editor more fluent in the topic] explains why the previous order was better. (Per WAID, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=952161861 "Doc James and Ozzie10aaaa quietly rearranged the order of sections in almost all WPMED-tagged articles a few years ago"], and reinforced by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James&diff=next&oldid=934589773 James here,] and Ozzie seems to misunderstand this guideline.)
• In July 2019, Ozzie reverts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thrombocytopenia&diff=905530146&oldid=905523373 without reading source,] and the editor reinstates and posts to Ozzie's talk, asking him to read the source.

A good portion of Ozzie's many edits are citation-bot assisted, updating epidemic data, and MEDMOS section heading adjustments. Most of them have no edit summaries. Otherwise, he seems to be at times editing above his comfort level and needing a lot of guidance. {{pb}}

{{icon|GA}} Dyslexia Dyslexia provides an example of my concerns about deteriorating content on Wikipedia and promotion/semi-protection of deficient medical GAs. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=953335463#Template Evo’s post] about the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyslexia&oldid=953007282#References gynormous peer review templates] parked in the References section—a template which has nothing to do with References for this article and should be in External links—brought me to the Dyslexia situation.{{pb}} See the full description and diffs of a troubling situation here.

{{cot|title= Full description and diffs of a troubling situation}}

• In March 2015, Dyslexia is promoted to GA on support from Bluerasberry, considerable and valid issues identified by Jytdog (with Ozzie threatening to take Jytdog to ANI [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dyslexia&diff=651520838&oldid=651520624] after asking him to review), concerns reiterated by Gordonofcartoon, and finally passed by DoctorJoeE.

• In July 2015, only four months later, User:Keilana initiates a Good article reassessment, identifying numerous and considerable problems, which are endorsed by CFCF as "should probably never have passed GAN".

:::* But James says, "The article is not that bad in my opinion." 16:09, 23 August 2015

• With an extremely [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dyslexia/GA2&oldid=690819820#Sourcing long list of sourcing issues identified by Keilana,]

:::* James says, {{tq|"I would classify this as a non actively researched area of medicine. While I agree that we should update primary sources with reviews a little leeway WRT WP:MEDDATE should be given." 16:15, 23 August 2015}} (emphasis mine: PubMed returns 140 secondary reviews for the last five years alone and [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=dyslexia+review&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C24&as_ylo=2010&as_yhi=2015 Google scholar returns 23,000 results] for Dyxlexia review between 2010 and 2015.) This is not an inactive area of research, and we would never apply that standard to woo and alt-quackery.

• James suggests closing the review on 03:41, 4 November 2015.

• User:Looie496 (a trusted editor in neuropsych content) brings up more serious problems. 15:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keilana closes the review on 15 November.

The article is twice promoted GA, with obvious prose deficiencies, support from Bluerasberry, and exemption from MEDRS standards from James.{{pb}}The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyslexia&oldid=953007282#References peer review template parked incorrectly in the References section] takes us to Wikiversity, where the article was [https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Dyslexia&oldid=2072467 nominated for review in October 2018,] and passed a year later in October 2019, after considerable sourcing problems identified and a substantail rewrite by [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikiversity.org/Talk:WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Dyslexia multiple editors] responsible for a quarter of 15% of the article (corrected per [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikiversity.org/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Dyslexia link to article]—previous was talk.)

• The [https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Dyslexia&oldid=2093294 article at Wikiversity] on Dyslexia has an adequate, well-written and professional lead with narrative that flows. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyslexia&oldid=953007282#References Wikipedia article] has an inferior lead, but the rest of the article appears to be a copy of the article that was rewritten at Wikiversity.

• BUT, the Wikipedia article [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Dyslexia does not attribute the writing] to the editors (like Markworthen) who seem to have written significant content over at Wikiversity. It appears that the entire article was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyslexia&diff=next&oldid=919875539 copied over in this October 15, 2019 edit,] with no edit summary, and no attribution, causing all of the Wikiversity rewritten content to be attributed to Ozzie10aaaa.
• Subsequently, the lead was downgraded in a series of edits by James and Ozzie on October 16, 2019, in which they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyslexia&type=revision&diff=921566285&oldid=921515386 install a lead according to their personal preferences.]

End result: a GA that is inferior to the same article on Wikiversity, twice passed GA when not in compliance with standards, still using non-MEDRS sources, with writing on Wikipedia attributed to Ozzie10aaaa when the article was mostly partially (except the lead) written by others at Wikiversity, copied to Wikipedia without attribution.{{pb}} And, seven months later, May 4, 2020, someone [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dyslexia&diff=954883675&oldid=953573186 notices the mess created in the lead last October.].{{pb}} May 10, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dyslexia&diff=next&oldid=954883675 perhaps this will just pass into archives] as did the last unaddressed problem with non-MEDRS sourcing in the article, backing inaccurate claims.

{{cob}}

Added content from User:SandyGeorgia/Dyslexia GA diffs, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

{{pb}} In a Medicine Project where alt-quack editors are routinely whacked for not strictly adhering to MEDRS and MEDDATE, we have at GA Dyxlexia being spread across the internet via WPMEDF apps, and James advocating for an exemption from MEDRS for his Wikifriend Ozzie, with:

• non-MEDRS-compliant sourcing,
• and inferior primary sources supporting the text in the article for the font referenced above,
• in a GA written by others at Wikiversity but attributed to Ozzie10aaaa on Wikipedia,
• with an inferior lead on Wikipedia relative to Wikiversity,
• and a deficient GA promoted twice, once with support from Wikifriend Bluerasberry, and the second time with James specifically saying that this article should be exempt from MEDRS for reasons that do not hold water, and would not be accepted in any other article.

::: See Barkeep's evidence on Quackguru history

A bad dynamic has overtaken medical editing, and has become a role model for other editors. The notion that bullying and editwarring is necessary to combatting woo, trolls, quacks, and POV pushers is prevalent, and yet there is plenty of editwarring that has little to do with anti-woo. (Samples: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=952310800#James_has_a_long-term_history_of_edit_warring general edit warring,] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=952310800#Case_study:_Schizophrenia,_James_editwars_with_senior_editors_and_content_experts Schizophrenia,] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=952310800#Case_study:_Down_syndrome,_edit_war_over_an_apostrophe Down syndrome,] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=952310800#Case_study_in_frustration:_Chronic_prostatitis/chronic_pelvic_pain_syndrome,_Ozzie10aaaa_and_James_with_an_inexperienced_user chronic prostatitis,] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=952310800#Drug_pricing_dispute drug pricing dispute,] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Julia_W general].) {{pb}}That MEDRS has become an anti-woo bludgeon is a source of discomfort for some who helped write that guideline (myself included). Bullying and MEDRS bludgeoning has alienated several experienced medical editors. {{pb}}Arbcom (Jytdog) and arb enforcement ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=941577627 QuackGuru]) have recently made inroads towards changing this dynamic. A minority of medical editors (including James) expressed support,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&diff=871837958&oldid=871828919] or found no problem with the behaviors that led to arbcom action, defended the behaviors, or expressed dissatisfaction with arb actions. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&diff=950542638&oldid=950484032 Roxy the dog,] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&diff=881559707&oldid=881557506 Seppi333,] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&diff=876074107&oldid=875954065 Ozzie10aaaa,] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&diff=next&oldid=871837958 Boghog]) James said: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJytdog&type=revision&diff=884486092&oldid=883298663 "we could technically over ride arbcom".] {{pb}}The cultural change is explained [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=929333660 by WAID in December 2019]: {{tq2|SandyGeorgia's comment about the long-term changes in the group resonates with me. We used to be focused on writing brilliant articles filled with precisely delimited claims and superb sources. Then we went through an anti-woo phase: almost anything's okay, as long as it hurts the spammers and alt-med proponents ... Now we seem to be talking more about issues of health policy, which is a more approximate subject area with a focus on practicalities, like approximate prices. }}

Another way to deal with woo is to re-write articles to a higher standard, addressing the woo components directly, as I did years ago at MMR vaccine and autism, and have tried to do at the battleground pages of delusional parasitosis and Morgellons. The attitude that prevails in medical editing is seen in this discussion, where editors who possibly have a delusional disorder are called LUNATICS, and both Jimbo and a sysop are used as role models, and bludgeoning techniques are used to keep out perceived woo. In this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Morgellons&oldid=951100058#Page_lacks_suggestion_that_this_is_a_real_disease,_or_has_any_medical_backing,_despite_studies_existing_that_have_apparently_observed_the_condition. perennial issue at Morgellons,] I did the research to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Morgellons&oldid=951100058#Update add content addressing the frequent questions.]{{pb}} With that as background:

• In this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1021#QuackGuru_and_disruption_over_e-cigs_and_pod_mods October 2019 ANI regarding QuackGuru's behavior, discussion stalled] with Andy Dingley pointing out the MEDRS bludgeon, and medical editors [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1021#Propose_ban James, Seppi333, Bluerasberry,] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1021#Proposed_editing_restrictions_short_of_a_ban Ozzie10aaa, James again, and Roxy the dog] being part of the reason ANI did not achieve consensus.
• In this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive880#Proposed_Block_for_QuackGuru March 2015 ANI regarding QuackGuru, no consensus was found] with medical editors Jytdog and James weighing in in favor of QuackGuru
• In this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive886#QuackGuru_and_Electronic_cigarette May 2015 ANI, restrictions are imposed on QuackGuru,] over sustained opposition from James.

Reviewing the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=952322357#James_has_a_long-term_history_of_edit_warring history of editors involved in editwarring threads,] and the multiple other case studies presented on this page, a quid-pro-quo appears to be an issue. Some editors mutually defend each other at ANI, AN3 and other dispute resolution fora, preventing community consensus on dealing with disruptive behavior.

Timeline of the development of the Medicine Project, Reliable sources in medicine guideline, and Medicine manual of style

• 2004, WikiProject Clinical Medicine was started by Jfdwolff
• 2005, November, WP MED was started by Knowledge Seeker [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=28653581]
• 2006, Summer, Manual of style (MEDMOS) was started and refined by Stevenfruitsmakk and Davidruben
• 2006, November, Identifying reliable sources in medicine (MEDRS) was started as a proposed guideline [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIdentifying_reliable_sources_%28medicine%29&type=revision&diff=86964405&oldid=86820442] by Colin
• 2006, by year-end,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=96111416] WP MED had an active list of members tasks, stub sorting, a portal, a weekly collaboration {{tl|CurrentMCOTW}}, news & announcements {{tl|MCOTWannounce}}, and a very active [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Showcase&oldid=97343516] Featured content and GA page. {{tl|Medicine trophy box}}
• 2007, Spring, MEDMOS is accepted as a guideline [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=130567799&oldid=127942012] with efforts by Colin, SandyGeorgia, and Fvasconcellos and copyediting by Tony1
• 2007, Refinements to MEDRS [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIdentifying_reliable_sources_%28medicine%29&action=history&year=2007&month=-1&tagfilter=] are made by Colin, SandyGeorgia, Nbauman, MastCell and Davidruben
• 2008, Nmb20 and Eubulides join in effort to promote MEDRS to guideline [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIdentifying_reliable_sources_%28medicine%29&action=history&year=2008&month=-1&tagfilter=]
• 2008, September, WP:MEDRS, promoted to guideline [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)&diff=next&oldid=235439445]
• Other editors who joined these efforts in 2008 were WhatamIdoing (WAID),[https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=WhatamIdoing&page=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FMedicine-related_articles&server=enwiki&max=][https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=WhatamIdoing&page=Wikipedia+talk%3AManual_of_Style%2FMedicine-related_articles&max=500&server=enwiki] Casliber, [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Casliber&page=Wikipedia+talk%3AManual_of_Style%2FMedicine-related_articles&max=500&server=enwiki] and User:Graham Beards (then GrahamColm) [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Graham+Beards&page=Wikipedia+talk%3AManual_of_Style%2FMedicine-related_articles&max=500&server=enwiki]

Whether by coincidence, commitment, or something else, almost all of the early contributors to the Medicine Project who are still active are also producers of featured content (the only exception being WAID):

• Casliber, Featured article review coordinator with 185 Featured articles, several medical
• Colin, one medical FA (Ketogenic diet), three Featured medical lists (List of people with epilepsy, Timeline of tuberous sclerosis and List of polio survivors), and numerous Featured images
• Graham Beards, former FAC delegate and five medical Featured articles (Social history of viruses, Phagocyte, Virus, Introduction to viruses and Rotavirus)
• SandyGeorgia, former FAC delegate and three Featured articles (Tourette syndrome, Samuel Johnson and Early life of Samuel Johnson—Johnson had Tourette syndrome)

:::: with all of us having contributed together towards most of the medical Featured articles (and even the very controversial Water fluoridation with Eubulides—evidence that a well-written article is the anti-woo protection!

These editors are accustomed to sustained and lengthy discussion and collaboration towards developing top content (qualities typified by Colin's editing, thoroughness, incisive analysis and comprehensive review, see here, here, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dementia_with_Lewy_bodies&oldid=952867135#Review here,] here, and here for but a few samples and Colin's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=946032152 encouragement here to participate]. Simply stated, the best route to a medical Featured article is to engage Colin for comprehensive analysis of content and prose and flow with incisive critique that always includes an examination of the sources. Number of bytes posted, and number of posts made is not part of the formula. Nor is frequent reverting. We don't always agree, we are accustomed to disagreeing, we are even accustomed to heated exchanges, but we are always headed the same direction (top content), and rarely resort to quick measures to sort out differences. It should not be surprising, then, that there is now a cultural clash at WPMED. {{pb}}WPMED has moved away from a culture where sustained and collaborative interaction and engagement on talk towards precision and accuracy in writing have been replaced by a hurried, attention-deficit, revert, revert, revert, "RFC to win", whack-a-mole culture. In the current environment, limited talk page engagement is characteristic, hasty RFCs are preferred over sustained discussion, and those who engage in sustained discussion are accused of "bludgeoning" and "walls of text".

This cultural change coincided with the uptick in WPMEDF activity, and the decline in FA-related activity, as a culture of "push as much content out the door via apps as we can" took over, in place of a sustained commitment to overall quality.{{pb}} Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history is a very successful WikiProject; its project page reveals its focus on generating top internal content, with a project page that highlights coordinators, goals, assessment, an A-class review, open tasks, how you can help, and core work areas. {{pb}} In contrast to its focus when its core guidelines were developed, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine's project page is now dominated by external WPMEDF partners, translations, apps and other non-en.Wikipedia projects, while it is short on information and encouragement about contributing to the English Wikipedia medical content upon which those apps and projects depend.{{pb}}

Many of the still-active editors who were involved in the early development of the Medicine guidelines have an interest in seeing the project guidelines well maintained, in sync with Wikipedia-wide guidelines, and reflecting best practice. This is partly because best practice must be followed by Featured articles, and Featured articles can't be produced if Project guidelines are in disarray. And we can see in the evidence on this page that most of these editors are in varying states of disillusionment or conflict with the Medicine Project. This is a red flag.{{pb}} The alternate explanation I offer to Rexx's narrative is that it is NOT the case that one more-or-less camp is opposed to innovation: they are opposed to the methods used to implement these WPMEDF projects. The crux of the conflict is:

• concern that these projects are promoting sub-standard content, as focus has shifted away from quality of content per se, towards propagating ill-maintained content via apps, while
• shifting the Medicine Project focus away from maintaining timely accurate content in that very information they are spreading, while
• having no measure of medical outcome to indicate that diverting resources from content towards content propagation improves health, while
• using less than desirable techniques to implement the content goals sought by WPMEDF. These methods include: one or two people achieving fait accompli (often via edit warring) in multiple areas-- altering the order of every medical article, altering the lead of every medical article, doing this often without edit summaries so the activity goes undetected, alerting WTMED to changes only after they have been accomplished, dumbing down leads sometimes to the point of inaccuracy (even Featured articles), inserting videos into the leads when the videos contain inaccuracies that cannot be corrected (even Featured articles), and putting up roadblocks at WT:MED when editors seek collaboration to restore deteriorating Featured articles to status (eg the discussion here, so that several of us have had to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colin&oldid=949668087#Asking_a_favor_of_your_time develop a network outside of the Medicine Project] to work together to produce and restore medical Featured articles.)

Ozzie describes James as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&diff=952147277&oldid=952143374 an "elite editor",] and uses editcountitis to justify his (Ozzie's) frequent appearances to back James on articles where Ozzie has never before appeared. James uses the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=942853377 same justification,] on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James&diff=next&oldid=934589773 more than one occasion.]{{pb}} Further, in contrast to the meme, On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, in medical editing, we confront [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=833136499 ill-conceived commentary implying that "Doc" James has a better command of policy and medical sourcing (even on topics where he is less experienced)] than other editors. Those "lesser important" (non-MDs) are inaccurately charged with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#Sub_optimal_time_to_launch_attacks_on_Doc_James poor timing for this arbcase,] while the impact of an arbcase (forced by James' behavior) on our time (samples, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guillermo_Trujillo_Dur%C3%A1n/GA1&curid=63565075&diff=952314550&oldid=952313182] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&diff=next&oldid=952289179] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates&curid=437575&diff=952366447&oldid=952366248]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jo-Jo_Eumerus&diff=prev&oldid=953077711]) is discounted because we aren't saving the world from a pandemic.{{pb}}I don't believe the "elitism" factor has an easy or apparent solution, and it is something we must live with, but the solution to the editcountitis problem might be less difficult. {{pb}}

• See User:SandyGeorgia/WPMED editcountitis:

{{cot|title=WPMED editcountitis}}

The culture at WPMED since around 2013 has chased off other editors, and turned from an environment of collaborative discussion to a culture of revert, revert, revert, solve disputes with a hastily-formulated RFC.

In the list of top medical editors Ozzie supplies[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=953519960#SG], I was at #14 in 2013, falling to #280 by 2016, and gone in 2017. In 2018—Dementia with Lewy bodies rewrite—I came back to #24. Of note, I was at #14 in spite of a) no automated editing, and b) extensive edits in non-medical areas (FA-related and Venezuela); in other words, WPMED lost a fairly prolific medical contributor.{{pb}} My editing is characterized by a ratio of talk to article edits about five times higher than either James or Ozzie; that is, sustained engagement on talk is a feature. I compared mine, James and Ozzie's talk/article ration to that of a fourth medical editor who puts his nose down, gets the work done, and isn't often seen in conflict (User:Alexbrn) and found him also at about a 50% ratio to my 45%, with James and Ozzie at 14% and 11%. With such limited engagement on talk, from two excessively prolific editors, conflict is not surprising.

:Note A: Mostly years I was not editing, as I backed out around 2013

: Note B: Stopped editing

: Note C: Tried WPMED collaboration on Dementia with Lewy bodies

: Note D: Mostly Venezuela editing, re-engaged medical in November after I returned for ArbCom elections

{{cob}}

(Added contents from User:SandyGeorgia/WPMED editcountitis, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC))

These numbers reinforce several issues, seen elsewhere in discussion on this Evidence page:

• The amount of editing by Ozzie and James is extreme, averaging about 100 edits per day from James, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=180&contribs=user&target=Doc_James&offset=20200417060000 175 edits on one 9-hour editing session.]
• Ozzie and James rarely engage on talk, relative to other editors.
• Both Ozzie and James are editing too much, too fast, and without adequately engaging on talk with careful attention to detail or sustained collaborative discussion.
• Ozzie follows James' edits to endorse James' positions without adequately engaging, which reinforces the overall cycle of non-engagement, replacing discussion with hastily-formulated RFCs.
• In contrast, those editors who do engage sustained discussion with incisive and policy-based analyses will see aspersions cast their direction and their reputations on Wikipedia destroyed.

Problems to be solved; I don't know how. I only know this culture alienated me from medical editing.

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=949830429#New_medical_editors only two welcomes]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_133#Whonamedit_issues Issues that once would have been addressed, ignored]
• Opposition to updating [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_134#Featured_article_removal_candidates outdated Featured articles]
• Effect of MEDRS bludgeon on new editors
• And the loss of active participation of several FA writers, who also pulled back from broader comtent engagement.
• WPMEDF template which invites editors to WPMEDF rather than WPMED. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SandyGeorgia/arch107#Thank_you_for_being_one_of_Wikipedia's_top_medical_contributors!]

WP:OWN#Featured articles (policy) says: {{tq2|Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first.}} Here is the level of writing about Tourette syndrome from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/tourette/facts.html {{pb}} User:SUM1 points out we are at that low level, describing James' leads as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_lead_guideline_for_medicine-related_articles&diff=prev&oldid=936504992 inducing headaches,] saying {{tq| What I do know is that any medical article maintained by Doc James has far too many short sentences in the lead and is incredibly disjointed to read. I wish I could change it to be more in line with basically every other article on the entire Wikipedia}}. {{pb}} SUM1 gives an example of choppy, disjointed prose in a lead [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlequin-type_ichthyosis&type=revision&diff=791145549&oldid=791049030 written by James] at Harlequin-type ichthyosis:{{tq2|"There is no cure. Early in life constant supportive care is typically required. Treatments may include moisturizing cream, antibiotics, etretinate, or retinoids. It affects about 1 per 300,000 births. There is no difference in rate of occurrence between sexes. Long-term problems are common. Death in the first month is relatively common. The condition was first documented in 1750."}}

Medical Featured article production has ended because James' imposes such leads on every article, and that kind of lead cannot pass FAC. (Meaning, I, for example, can no longer do what I do on Wikipedia, and basically gave up and stopped editing.) {{pb}}While writing for the purposes of translation is a laudable goal, we must first aim for accuracy and precision in our English-language content. I experienced the lead rewrite at Tourette's in 2016.

• On October 15, 2016 (well after James had reordered the leads of many articles, see Fait accompli section) and with no prior request or discussion on talk, James rewrote the lead, ending [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tourette_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=744422313 here at 03:25]. At 19:45, I started repair:
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tourette_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=744422586] "Vocal" tics are distinguished from "phonic" tics in the literature, and the distinction is important and a frequent source of confusion.
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tourette_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=744520971] "worsen and improve" is prejudicial language that is avoided, and does not accurately encompass the many ways tics fluctuate, described in almost all reviews as "waxing and waning". [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C24&q=Tourette+AND+%28%22wax+and+wane%22+OR+%22waxing+and+waning%22%29&btnG=] "Waxing and waning" encompasses much more than the prejudicial "worsen and improve", and is terminology encountered in most TS literature.
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tourette_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=744521079] "briefly" is just an inaccurate choice of words here; sometimes tics are suppressed all day while a child is at school
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tourette_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=744521244] premonitory urges do not have to be "strong"; they can be a feeling like an itch
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tourette_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=744521358] James completely dropped one sentence.

At that point, James begins discussion on talk for the first time. I then had to spend several days explaining all the errors he had introduced, and trying to get the article back to some semblance of accuracy. A lengthy discussion ensues, and I ultimately am obligated to accept James' re-ordering, having seen how the history has unfolded in other cases (editwar --> RFC --> several editors unfamiliar with the topic or sources come in to "agree w/Doc James", means it is easier to go along with James to avoid trouble).{{pb}} James' goals were to a) simplify the language for translation (which was not revealed until well into the discussion) and b) reorder the lead according to his preference. The preferred order of narrative is not optimal for Tourette syndrome. And in trying to simplify wording, James introduced inaccuracies. He attempted to rewrite the lead of a topic he is not familiar with, without the courtesy of a notification first. Had James approached this collaboratively—that is, had he simply put a list of words he wanted to simplify, and allowed editors knowledgeable in the topic to work through them—the process would have been much more effective. And I would not have given up on maintaining all medical Featured articles. James is not a neurologist, or a urologist, or a psychiatrist, and this pattern repeats across articles that are not in his area of practice, contributing to ongoing conflict.{{pb}} In 2018, I attempted a WPMED collaboration: I approached a complete rewrite of a dismal Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) after an exciting new consensus report was published in 2017, hoping the effort would re-unite WPMED in the kind of collaboration it once excelled at. I gave up after experiencing the dysfunction that had overtaken WPMED. {{pb}}The first phase of that effort (beginning at the "Outdated" section, and including the rest of talk Archive 1) was dealing with extremely dated info in the lead, sourced to NIH, and lengthy discussions about what appeared to be James not understanding the new diagnostic criteria. So I realized I was going to have to rewrite the entire article all at once, or incur endless discussion to explain the new consensus. Between March 28 and April 8, I rewrote the entire article, and the next phase began (intended to be a productive collaboration). The second phase (all of Archive 2) shows Wikipedia at its finest: considerable productive discussion between both medical editors and experienced FA copyeditors. But then, having not yet dealt with James' personal preferences on leads (I believe in writing leads last), a separate issue occurred at the meta-level, in which every editor with an opinion tried to explain the faulty reasoning of yet another medical editor who threatened to vehemently oppose a FAC [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dementia_with_Lewy_bodies&diff=next&oldid=837144110] (in bright flashy highlighted text) over his idiosyncratic personal preferences about the word "should". I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Request_for_comment_on_tone_in_medical_writing&oldid=838918536 began drafting an RFC], which I abandoned because that editor's views did not gain support from anyone. Meanwhile, yet a third medical editor was rude to an FA writer who showed up to help copyedit my typically dreadful prose.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=835988822&diff=prev] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dementia_with_Lewy_bodies&diff=next&oldid=835990150] Also, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADementia_with_Lewy_bodies&type=revision&diff=837443766&oldid=837439160 Colin's attempt to explain the way we usually] worked together on collaboration towards FAC was misinterpreted by Tryptofish as "condescending", after Trypto inserted unsourced text in two places. All factors considered, I lost hope, and stopped editing, realizing that the type of collaboration that was routine and customary at other FACs was not probably going to happen at DLB. {{pb}}So, with now four separate problems, I decided to abandon the possibility of taking DLB to its best level.{{pb}}But the pattern in the lead at Tourette's and elsewhere repeated at DLB when James appeared unfamiliar with recent journal literature.

• At Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies/Archive 1#Infobox inaccuracies, I had to spend a good bit of time convincing James that he was using old sources, when the 2017 DLB Consortium had completely changed the diagnostic criteria, such that text he wanted in the lead was inaccurate; he didn't appear to understand or be aware of the significance of the new findings.

:::* I reluctantly accepted James' piping of "lack of interest" to apathy, although I disagree that description is accurate or precise enough for medical writing, knowing it is expedient to go along with James rather than incur an RFC over a word. (Just as I reluctantly removed "wax and wane" from the lead at Tourette's.) Precision is lost for the purpose of translation, and apathy is not difficult to understand or translate. (Disclaimer: I work as a volunteer interpreter in a free clinic for Hispanic migrant workers.)

:::* All of this led to a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=834237544&diff=prev#NIH_sourcing lengthy discussion with James,] where I pleaded with him to understand the impact his editing was having, in a discussion encompassing all of the issues in one. I pointed out James' dishonesty at intentionally linking to a dated, archived NIH source to justify his position, when newer sources and information were available; today, I retract that as dishonesty and assert it is more likely a reflection of James editing too much, too fast, in areas he does not know thoroughly, and not fully reading, engaging or digesting talk page discussions. (Discussed many times with James, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James&diff=next&oldid=934583834 for example here].) Hasty RFCs allow him a faster way of proceeding than actual discussion.

:::* In October 2019, an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dementia_with_Lewy_bodies&diff=prev&oldid=923814343 editor made good-faith improvements] to the lead of DLB, resulting in smoother prose, but was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dementia_with_Lewy_bodies&diff=next&oldid=923814343 reverted by James.]

DLB ended up with such a poor lead that I disengaged and could not take it to FAC. (I re-engaged this year, precisely because and after some of the WPMED bullying has been dealt with by arb actions, and I am hoping to progress to FAC.)

{{pb}} A frequent problem is that James edits article leads only, and does not edit the body of the article to keep it in sync with the lead. After the 2016 experience at Tourette's, I unwatched most medical Featured articles, only checking on them occasionally. While I was absent, enough damage was done to {{icon|FA}} Asperger syndrome that it was defeatured this week. (Similar problems exist in almost all medical featured articles, where the body is not kept in sync when the lead is edited, and they are almost universally outdated.)

• In March 2016, James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asperger_syndrome&type=revision&diff=709797331&oldid=708587649 restructured the lead,] introducing considerable prose problems: {{tq2| While there is likely a genetic basis it has not been determined. Environmental factors are also believed to play a role. Brain imaging have not identified a common underlying problem. The diagnosis of Asperger's was gotten rid of in the 2013 fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and people with these symptoms are now included within the autism spectrum disorder along with autism and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified. It remains within the tenth edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) as of 2015.}}

:* James returns in June to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asperger_syndrome&diff=725930082&oldid=725800647 address one prose problem]

• James simplifies language by piping [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asperger_syndrome&diff=726492862&oldid=726461303 “inherited from a persons parents”] to heredity.
• While the body of the article says:

:* There is some evidence that children with AS may see a lessening of symptoms; up to 20% of children may no longer meet the diagnostic criteria as adults ...

:* In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asperger_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=893951493 this edit to the lead only,] James adds contradictory information

::* "typically last for a person's entire life" without adjusting the text in the body or adding that to the body, and

::* adds that "females are typically diagnosed at a latter (sic) age" which is not in the body of the article.

• At Dengue fever, an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dengue_fever&diff=prev&oldid=943233333 update to the lead] has 40,000 annual deaths, which is not added anywhere to the body.
• At Schizophrenia, James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schizophrenia&diff=prev&oldid=772449567 adds 17,000 deaths in 2015] to the lead, but does not adjust the body, which says 20,000 in 2010.

These are samples only of the kind of editing I have seen at every Featured article, where focus on the lead only takes the lead out of sync with the body, neglects the overall content, and ultimately leads to Featured articles falling into such a state of disrepair that they must be defeatured, as Asperger’s was this week.{{pb}}In all of these cases, James is editing outside of his area of practice, yet imposing his preferences in the lead, for the apparent purposes of translation. My concern is that, with a focus on producing leads for external apps, overall content is neglected and even degraded, and that James is simply editing too much, too fast, and in a way that leads to alienation of other editors. It has proven difficult to get James or his supporters to recognize this. The new WPMED pattern is revert, revert, revert, then conduct an ill-formed RFC "to win", rather than engage, discuss, understand, respect, apply policy-based reasoning and collaborate.

At Ivermectin, in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=933291616&diff=prev#Price 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:

• {{u|May His Shadow Fall Upon You}}, who notes the text is not in compliance with MOS:LEAD, and
• {{u|ReconditeRodent}} who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ivermectin&diff=prev&oldid=916268052 evidences the fait accompli;] RR provides for reasoning the fact that many other drug articles contain prices in the lead, likely unaware that they were [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Colin/PriceEdits&oldid=950498526 mostly inserted by one editor,] against policy.

After the 7 December 2019 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=929721978 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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=Doc+James&namespace=5&tagfilter=&start=2019-12-07&end=2020-01-23&limit=250&title=Special%3AContributions]

:::( 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). {{pb}} 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=942627436&oldid=942539646] (see Bluerasberry canvassing section)

: User:Avicenno (WPMEDF) entered a 6 February [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=939486693&oldid=939407372 no policy-based reasoning], ILIKEIT opinion.

: User:AbhiSuryawanshi (WPMEDF) entered a 3 February [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=938926633&oldid=938925941 no policy-based reasoning], OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

: User:Pratik.pks (WPMEDF- videos) entered a 3 February [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=938932479&oldid=938927433 no reasoning at all]—Pratik has five article edits on Wikipedia as of 15 April [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=Pratik.pks&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=250&title=Special%3AContributions] and has mostly edited the Dengue fever video (a video that “Not anyone can edit”, based on outdated text, and yet installed in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dengue_fever&oldid=948377630 lead of a Featured article])

The RFC was open fox six weeks (23 January to 7 March); 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=947828486&oldid=947793004 initiated discussion at WT:MED] on 28 March. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=951097655#RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simvastatin&diff=947925558&oldid=937426700 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. {{pb}} With [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASimvastatin&type=revision&diff=948229071&oldid=783612976 insufficient discussion on talk,] and no discussion about how to correctly frame an RFC, James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simvastatin&diff=next&oldid=948229071 unilaterally launched another RFC] only three days after the community-wide RFC closed. Similarly, he unilaterally [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&diff=next&oldid=948254049 launched another] RFC at Talk:Ethosuximide.

• James set up the RFC as a "yes-no" !vote format and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simvastatin&diff=next&oldid=948229071 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.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simvastatin&diff=prev&oldid=948237442] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simvastatin&diff=next&oldid=948244425] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simvastatin&diff=next&oldid=948245779] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simvastatin&diff=next&oldid=948548490] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simvastatin&diff=next&oldid=948548717]

• James positioned the RFC as if the dispute was whether two sources verified the text, rather than whether the text complied with the conclusion of the RFC about drug prices in the lead—obtaining the desired answer by asking a misleading question.
• Ozzie10aaaa [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simvastatin&diff=prev&oldid=948233917 supports within minutes.]
• WhatamIdoing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simvastatin&diff=prev&oldid=948243236 explains the problems with the RFC statement,] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simvastatin&diff=next&oldid=948243236 removes the requirement for no threaded discussions,] which is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simvastatin&diff=next&oldid=948245228 reinstated by James.] A meta-discussion about how to run an RFC ensues, and James is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simvastatin&diff=prev&oldid=948258629 reminded that the question should have been worked out in advance.]
• Bluerasberry alters the format of the !votes (see Bluerasberry evidence above) so that by the time other editors begin showing to the discussion, they see a misleading RFC question, allowing only a yes-no !vote, where threaded discussion is disallowed, and Support votes are numbered but Opposes are not, and discussion of what the actual dispute is about is buried somewhere below. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simvastatin&oldid=948928939#Clarification_of_RfC]

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:

• Avicenno (WPMEDF officer) does not [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simvastatin&diff=948316442&oldid=948296317 engage discussion]
• Ian Furst (WPMEDF) offers [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEthosuximide&type=revision&diff=949643938&oldid=949634650 sound reasoning for his support] but that very same reasoning indicates he may not have read the discussion, or realized he is answering the wrong question
• JenOttawa (WPMEDF former officer) supported without [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simvastatin&diff=948612318&oldid=948610390 appearing to engage the discussion]
• Myoglobin (Osmosis) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James&diff=949960277&oldid=949898416 emails James at 14:13 9 April] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simvastatin&curid=7339586&diff=949973611&oldid=949826953 supports at 15:52 9 April]
• AbhiSuryawanshi (WPMEDF) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simvastatin&curid=7339586&diff=951185268&oldid=950940276 supports per WPMEDF colleagues James and Bluerasberry]
• CFCF (WPMEDF officer) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simvastatin&diff=948931540&oldid=948928939 supports]
• Bluerasberry (WPMEDF officer) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simvastatin&diff=prev&oldid=948928746 supports]
• RexxS (WPMEDF officer) also supports, but does engage the full discussion that was moved below, and offers reasoning

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.

; Brings old baggage to discussion

For very old (and limited) reasons, Trypto seems to hold a grudge against Colin, relating to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tryptofish&diff=next&oldid=849997518 one issue where Trypto followed Colin to Commons and misreported an issue there,] leading Trypto to ban Colin from their talk page after one post; another where [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=834092443&diff=prev Colin used the word "guys",] and Trypto responded, “I will certainly remember this”; and another where [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoc_James&type=revision&diff=834240966&oldid=834240790 Colin accurately described how I felt when confronting the behaviors now in evidence on this page,] and being told I would just "have to deal with it as is". It seems this baggage may have led to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADementia_with_Lewy_bodies&type=revision&diff=837443766&oldid=837439160 Tryptofish reading into a post from Colin] intent that was not there in the DLB incident. I tried my best to stay out of that, but was relieved that someone (Colin) understood how it felt to be treated that way, when trying to resolve content issues with a colleague, and having another editor interfere. Tryptofish's evidence seems to blame Colin for issues that occurred at Dementia with Lewy bodies, without reason, as Colin only explained to Tryptofish the problems with adding text without consulting sources. I don't yet understand why Tryptofish took offense to that.

; Caused consternation during RFC formulation

During the formulation of the RFC,

• Tryptofish "quietly" let [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tryptofish/Drug_prices_RfC_draft_2&oldid=932555084 Barkeep49 know on December 26] that they were working on a new draft.
• They did not tell others about this undeveloped draft [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=933772997&oldid=933770386 until January 2, when WAID's draft] was already well developed and we were under some time pressure.
• On January 4, Tryptofish said [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=934113151&oldid=934112549 he felt ignored and that others were trying to run out the clock.]
• Barkeep49 asked [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tryptofish&diff=next&oldid=934119836 Tryptofish to strike the entire statement;] Trypto did [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=934133471&oldid=934132921 strike part of it.]

I was off-Wiki when much of this occurred, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tryptofish&diff=next&oldid=934153809 posted my expression of regret to Tryptofish] on January 5.

; Stirred the pot, urging an arbcase, even while others were hoping for conflict resolution

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=833130614&oldid=833130278 March 2018]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tryptofish&diff=next&oldid=934485891 January 2020]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=933778852&diff=prev January 2020 again]

and then unnecessarily [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tryptofish&diff=next&oldid=934391839 stirred the arbcom pot with James, while we were seeking resolution, saying] "they are clearly looking to make a case against you", and "That's important 'insurance' in the event that this goes to ArbCom." The appearance is that Tryptofish always wanted these issues to end up before the arbs, rather than resolved amongst ourselves.

• On January 6, I asked Trypto to please stop with the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tryptofish&diff=next&oldid=934482933 "fighting words".]

Tryptofish continued these behaviors, and Colin took Tryptofish's persistent failure to AGF [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barkeep49/Archives/3#Lack_of_AGF to Barkeep's talk page, where I again implored Tryptofish to cease urging an arbcase.] Patiently enduring all of this and more, and without taking sides whatsoever, Barkeep49 merely suggested that the problems between Colin and Tryptofish might go to Arbitration Enforcement. That simple suggestion provoked [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tryptofish&diff=next&oldid=934547205 Tryptofish to retire.] Because Trypto repeatedly suggested he wanted to fully retire, at Barkeep's talk page, when I asked Tryptofish if he wanted to be a named party in the case (as Hipal/Ronz had requested in the same discussion), Tryptofish fails to AGF, accuses me of "intimidation" and "battleground" (???????), so I refrained from adding him as a party, even though his actions led to a deteriorating climate for dispute resolution.

There are concerns thoughout the evidence of reverts being made without edit summaries, and changes that are known to be controversial being made without adequate summaries. The edit summary issue has contributed to the tension at WPMED, as it lends a "stealth" appearance to the edits and makes it hard for other editors to be aware that controversial changes are being made.

• August 2008, James is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_1#Edit_summaries reminded to use edit summaries]
• May 2010, James [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_9#Edit_summaries reminded by two editors] to use edit summaries
• January 2012, James again requested [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_26#Edit_summaries to use edit summaries]
• June 2014 Another [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_70#Edit_summaries edit summary request]
• July 2017, a conflict arises over [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_114#absent_edit_summaries missing edit summaries] and forced re-ordering of sections
• March 2018, Clayoquot discussion of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_110#Prior_discussions_at_WPMED_about_the_collaboration edit summary issue on Video insertions,]

:* complete with personalization by CFCF ("this seems like conspiratorial thinking on your part in order to justify this inane discussion. Carl Fredrik talk 12:59, 28 March 2018") and an

:* agree w/ CF--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2018

• July 2019, James [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_154#Please_avoid_edit_summaries_that_cast_aspersions asked to avoid using edit summaries] to cast aspersions.
• August 2019, James continues adding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cirrhosis&diff=913022860&oldid=910225149 videos to leads] without an edit summary (and not in External links, where external videos belong, if at all)

After discussion at WT:MED about using edit summaries on controversial drug price edits,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=948037030] which was adopted by others,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simvastatin&diff=947925558&oldid=937426700] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simvastatin&diff=948185292&oldid=948097756] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simvastatin&diff=948251099&oldid=948250513] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethosuximide&diff=948010701&oldid=936680663] James continues without (see as an example edits at Simvastatin and his contribs

• April 2017, Ozzie [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ozzie10aaaa&oldid=952867961#Edit_summaries(Video_game_addiction)/(wikiproject_med)^ reminded to use edit summaries]
• October 2017, Ozzie [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ozzie10aaaa&oldid=952867961#Moving_content_/Lissencephaly/(wikiproject_med)^ reminded to use edit summaries]
• December 2018, Ozzie [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=933263894&diff=prev reminded to use edit summaries]

:: Ozzie [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&diff=933267246&oldid=933098977 indicated he would try] (without providing an edit summary :) Ozzie is still not using edit summaries consistently or helpfully, although I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ozzie10aaaa&diff=932390872&oldid=932284784 explained to him that he can set a reminder in preferences.]

Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=950430251#Inappropriate_behavior_by_Colin_and_Sandy James evidence,] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&diff=next&oldid=949671619] he had never before asked me not to ping him. After he first asked [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=948251075 on 31 March,] he had an acknowledgment from me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=948251075 within 13 minutes.] James misrepresents my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&type=revision&diff=949617158&oldid=949609185&diffmode=source statement about "arrogance"] and fails to AGF. It would be arrogant of me to demand people not to ping me because it makes extra work for my arthritic hands; I can change my preferences if needed.

The vaccine section at Dengue fever was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dengue_fever&diff=943237578&oldid=943233669 updated] a month after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dengue_fever&type=revision&diff=937944475&oldid=937836407 I tagged the section,] and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dengue_fever&oldid=948377630#Research Research section remains dated,] while the References section reflects some WP:MEDDATE issues, and the Epidemiology section needs an update.

: James says [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=952489455#Response_to_other_evidence "The claims around dengue are false."] I don't want to continue a content dispute here, but the "false claims" should be addressed. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dengue_fever&oldid=937946046 This is the lead] I tagged in January 2019. {{tq|"The vaccine, however, is only recommended in those who have been previously infected"}} is inaccurate. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dengue_fever&oldid=952478397 The current lead] says: {{tq|"As of 2018, the vaccine is only recommended in individuals who have been previously infected or, in populations with a high rate of prior infection by age nine."}} The update was made at my instigation; the body of the article is still out of sync with the lead, and there are still tagged updates needed. My concern (as indicated in [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6843364/ this primary study]) is that during the Crisis in Venezuela this article should be timely and accurate. Inaccurate statements about vaccines impact people where Dengue has and will escalate. Others might say, SOFIXIT: in the past, I have been accused of COI and threatened with topic ban by a now-banned editor; I had dengue fever when I lived in Venezuela, so am concerned I will be similarly charged if I make substantive edits to this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

James' response [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=950983701 lists vandalism that well pre-dates] the semi-protection at Gastroenteritis.

James' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FMedicine%2FEvidence&type=revision&diff=950982471&oldid=950824314 response about Gout] shows a misunderstanding about good-faith misinterpretation of a source, versus vandalism.

: Update: As [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&diff=next&oldid=952421685 James points out,] one of the edits interpreted as vandalism (and the semi-protection) occurred in January 2012, while the source was accepted for publication in March 2012 and published in July 2012. We cannot know if the IP (who has no other contribs) had advance knowledge of the publication, and interpretation of that edit as vandalism at that time could not have been avoided. The overall conclusion remains: there doesn't seem to be enough indication for indefinite semi-protection in any of these cases, and I am happy to see that James is willing to adjust these. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

----

{{u|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine&diff=951390467&oldid=951387635 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 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)

: Also, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=951529694#Sub_optimal_time_to_launch_attacks_on_Doc_James regarding the timing to "launch attacks on Doc James",] the timing was James' choice. {{u|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=180&contribs=user&target=Doc_James&offset=20200417060000 175 edits in a 9.5-hour editing session on 16 to 17 April.] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

----

Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&diff=next&oldid=952321193 Ozzie’s statement,] the arbs can pass judgment on whether such "harassment" ever occurred (particularly since that block was removed quite quickly, before I even knew it happened).[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&diff=prev&oldid=561552787] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

: Ozzie, regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FMedicine%2FEvidence&type=revision&diff=953279581&oldid=953273849 this statement,] Colin and I have been involved at WPMED from its earliest days, in the development of MEDMOS, MEDRS, and at multiple FACs, FARs and Featured articles. Which of those interactions concerns you? Perhaps [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=638686083&diff=prev this one,] which is not in the normal suite of articles we edit, and where Colin disagrees with me? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

----

Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=952339988#Doc_James_will_engage_with_anyone_willing_to_discuss Ian Furst’s statement about Down's syndrome,] I began editing Down syndrome on 2006-12-02 00:16 and Colin on 2006-12-08 23:36 (related to the peer review and Featured article candidacy); James began editing DS on 2009-06-14.[https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Down_syndrome#top-editors] The disputed text was present at every stage of content review, according to the Article milestones.

• 2006 Peer review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&oldid=61887407]
• 2006 Featured article candidate [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&oldid=75395217]
• 2010 Featured article review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&oldid=393962990]
• 2012 Peer review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&oldid=511123909]
• 2014 Good article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&oldid=601150089]

and was only removed by James in 2016,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=705064317] when he began inserting his views of leads on every medical article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

----

Where [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=952856408#Conduct T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) describes as "unconstructive friction",] the full discussion is omitted from their link, and is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 134#Featured article removal candidates. What started as a post to solicit help maintaining FAs (where there was a good deal of helpful commentary from MILHIST members), turned to addressing inaccurate and discouraging commentary from CFCF.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=944434777] Specifically, the statement, "FA … lacks understanding of what concessions need to be made for medical articles" is odd, considering two former FAC delegates (SandyGeorgia, Graham Beards) and one current FAR Coordinator (Casliber) are medical editors. I point out the inaccuracies,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=944452347] and that CFCF is not in a position to criticize how the process works as he hasn't participated there,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=944452347] and CFCF calls that an "ad hominem".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=946502564] With now two statements that WPMEDF members are not concerned to keep medical FAs up to date,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Chagas_disease/archive1&diff=942160955&oldid=942153470][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=944434777] and with these roadblocks thrown up when Featured article reviews are mentioned at WTMED, the effort has had to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colin&oldid=948784714#Asking_a_favor_of_your_time move off of the Medicine project page,] to a grassroots effort which has seen good results (example Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chagas disease/archive1, with editors also willing to begin repairs to Dengue fever). {{pb}} I have have stricken the statement that the template is a WPMEDF project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

----

The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=929531266 fallacies of tone policing] explained at the ANI to Bluerasberry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Statements have been made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=953354289#Other_efforts_to_block_content_creation on this Evidence page] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment&type=revision&diff=950636950&oldid=950538722 elsewhere] impugning the motives of those who fully engage dispute resolution. In relation to the amount of text contributed by editors who scarcely engage at all, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=942627436&oldid=942539646] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=939486693&oldid=939407372] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=938926633&oldid=938925941] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=938932479&oldid=938927433] the percent contributed by those who do appears inflated. EDITCOUNTITIS charges that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=953354289#Walls_of_text_and_changing_questions_in_RfCs WhatamIdoing, Colin and SG contributed 60% of the RFC] do not account for a) WAID drafted the RFC, so had KB due to the orginal writing; b) Colin provided almost all of the (incisive, policy-based) price analysis; and c) I (SG) re-posted to the page at someone else's request a copy of a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=940449872&oldid=940447604 long quote from the formulation phase.] (Which doesn't mean I am not known for a long history of apparently genetic verbosity, contrasted with WAID's and Colin's incisive and precise analyses.) Further:{{pb}} At WhatamIdoing's urging, the principals in the dispute and formulation of the RFC held off until later in the process, so as not to impede or influence commentary from others. {{pb}} In my case:

• 23 Jan: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=prev&oldid=937268145 RFC launched]
• 31 Jan: 8 days in, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=938515242&oldid=938513325 SG first post] is six words
• 12 Feb: 20 days in, SG [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=940343080&oldid=940335628 asks for clarification] on Bluerasberry's "plan" for drug pricing
• 12 Feb: 20 days in, SG adds KB by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=940449872&oldid=940447604 providing a quote from earlier discussion] that another editor had requested [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=940449872&oldid=940447604]
• 18 Feb: 26 days in, SG [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=941443421&oldid=941434342 begins responding]

:* At that point, the trends were already clear and 38 of the 40 respondents had already opined. The RFC closed on 7 March, so there was ample time for people to respond to my comments.

The RFC was formulated over seven weeks (7 December to 23 January), and discussion encompasses three archives. Formulation was made difficult because of the time spent in trying to find a single sample (from the over 500 inserted) of drug price text that met all other policies (WP:V, WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT), so a strong example could be used to ask a neutral question about whether that price info met WP:NOT and should be included per WP:LEAD. Much time was lost because not one example could be found that did not appear to have multiple other policy-based or source-to-text-integrity problems. For that reason, how to position an RFC had to be re-cast several times, and discussion of two RFCs occurred (that is, how can we determine if NOT and LEAD are met, if we don't have a sample that is otherwise policy compliant, so we will have to deal with that first).

• [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices?editorlimit=200 Edits to Drug pricing RFC]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&offset=20200124000000&limit=1305&tagfilter=&action=history Edits to WT:MEDMOS during the RFC formulation] (some of these edits are to other topics on the same page)

Many medical editors weighed in on the Simvastatin RFC, and the Ethosuximide RFC, yet never participated either in the formulation of the broader RFC, or the broader RFC itself, and now appear to want to overturn it. Those include: JenOttawa, Whispyhistory, CFCF, Myoglobin, RexxS and Flyer22 Reborn. Ozzie10aaaa did not participate in the formulation, but did add one brief comment to the RFC.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=937663242] Although Ian Furst did not participate in either, he did indicate multiple times that he was following and reading.

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)

Some discussed at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1025#User%3AColin this ANI in Dec of 2019 with respect to Colin]. On Dec 2nd I requested that Colin stop pinging me.([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&type=revision&diff=928955269&oldid=928950820&diffmode=source 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=928964052&diffmode=source 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.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&type=revision&diff=929092774&oldid=929091888&diffmode=source]

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.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=prev&diff=948249692&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=prev&diff=948248228&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=prev&diff=948246306&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=prev&diff=948243283&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=prev&diff=948236512&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=prev&diff=948236126&diffmode=source] Sandy has criticized me multiple times for requesting unwanted pings to stop, Mar 31st stating "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&type=revision&diff=948251744&oldid=948251075&diffmode=source you disallowed pings and were not keeping up with discussion]". On Apr 7th they calls those who make such requests "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&type=revision&diff=949617158&oldid=949609185&diffmode=source 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.

A 2016 RfC concluded "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_84#Price_of_medications 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.

There have also been efforts to shut down develop of consensus through RfCs such as here "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simvastatin&diff=prev&oldid=948238094&diffmode=source Wrong RFC.]"

Many editors at WP:MED have spent a significant amount of time improving the readability of the leads of medical articles. [https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Readability_of_English_Wikipedia%27s_health_information_over_time A published analysis] found that the reading levels changed from grade 15.7 in 2008 down to grade 12.7 in 2018.

The work is supported by guidelines such as “[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable Strive to make each part of every article as understandable as possible to the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material.]”

WP:MEDMOS has summarized this as “The lead of an article, if not the entire article, should be written as simply as possible without introducing errors or ambiguity.” since 2015.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&type=revision&diff=665526470&oldid=665465084&diffmode=source]

There however was attempts by Colin and Sandy to remove this wording in 2019 without discussion.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&curid=6155219&diff=925790869&oldid=923592704&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/Archive_10#Lead] And a push to use more complicated wording though a compromise was reached.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dementia_with_Lewy_bodies/Archive_2#Responding_to_edits_from_Doc_James] This involved small adjustments like using “loss of interest” rather than “apathy” added here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dementia_with_Lewy_bodies&diff=prev&oldid=835260785&diffmode=source] adjusted here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dementia_with_Lewy_bodies&type=revision&diff=835282426&oldid=835281415&diffmode=source]

Colin stated Mar 2018 “[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=832663825&diffmode=source I have seen too many times Doc James pervert our article content to suit his pet projects, which are not aligned with English Wikipedia. Four years ago I saw him spend his time dumbing down our leads to baby language in the assumption that this made it easier to translate or with the idea that this was Simple English wikipedia, for those who find English hard to read.]” And this insulting of writing for a general audience continues to Apr 23 2020 with "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop&diff=952711385&oldid=952369590&diffmode=source Doc James does not write about cost, he adds factoids]".

Here is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force/RTT(Simplified)L a list of more than 1,300 leads] I have worked on and I would invite people to decide for themselves if these are inappropriately dumbed down or written in baby language.

There have been efforts to improve the consistency of the layout of disease and medication related articles over the last 10 years. This makes the WP easier to use, especially by those who do so frequently. It also makes our content easier to maintain. The suggested ordering is present at WP:MEDMOS and is supported by the majority of the community. Yes there can be exceptions but these generally need justification.

Sandy attempted to remove the fact that there is no rule against citations in the leads of articles from MEDMOS in 2018.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&type=revision&diff=851775146&oldid=851757144&diffmode=source] Translation between languages, a project being working on since 2012, would not be possible without references in the lead. These efforts have resulted in the translation of more than 6 million works of text by the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force Efforts have concentrated on translating the leads of articles due to feedback from a number of languages. The attempt to remove this text occurred despite this having been discussed multiple times.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/Archive_10#LEAD_redux]

Wikipedia’s content is often US / EU centric. In collaboration with the World Health Organization WP:MED/WPMEDF worked to improve our coverage of all medicines listed in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines. This is a list of medications that should be present in all health systems due in part their efficacy, safety, and cost. As part of these efforts the WHO released the 2017 list under a CC BY SA 3.0 IGO license. These efforts worked to add a decent summary, including details on use during pregnancy and discussion of cost. The latter of course bringing us here.

Well there appears to be consensus on including the numerical prices of medications in the leads of articles when those medications are expensive in the United States such as pyrimethamine and onasemnogene abeparvovec, some appear unwilling to allow prices of any sort in LMIC anywhere in the article despite 1) plenty of sources discussing costs of essential medicines generally 2) a book published by the WHO which has these details.

I am happy to consider changes; the details in question can be presented without interpretation and within the body of the article rather than the lead, and I hope that the other people involved will accept this also. I am also happy to put the question to the community.

Also many have suggested improving our coverage of costs of medications including User:Nbauman back in 2014.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Style_guide/Archive_1#Cost]

Yes it is more difficult to include coverage pertaining to LMIC as high quality sources are harder to find, but when such sources are available Wikipedia should not actively avoid providing appropriate details. The population of LMIC is 6.4 billion (85%) out of 7.5 billion people as of 2018. https://data.worldbank.org/income-level/low-and-middle-income

That I editing via consensus and working to develop consensus can be clearly shown in this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Simvastatin#Clarification_of_RfC RfC] and other RfCs.

Wikipedia needs to be not only in a language that people can understand but also a format that they can use. We do and can adjust our content rules to make enWP universal, and we have from the very start. The goal was to make a free encyclopedia, free for anyone to adapt, and enWP and the foundation have always kept the other purposes of society in mind.

I have collaborated to develop [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Project_Med/App offline apps] in various languages and [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Internet-in-a-Box offline distribution systems]. We are not just writing enWP for online use, we are also writing enWP for offline use. And the changes that make enWP better for offline users also makes enWP better for online users.

I have supported multiple video collaborations including with the Khan Academy,[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Whats_Inside_of_Blood.webm] HealthPhone,[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:HealthPhone] Osmosis,[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_from_Osmosis] and WP:Videowiki. Rich content, such as video, was the second most requested improvement in the 2015 readers survey.[https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Community_Consultation_on_Strategy,_WMF_Metrics_Meeting_July_2015.pdf&page=39]

Comments such as “VideoWiki, as an attempt to get editors to create and edit videos for Wikipedia, is a failure. The videos are rubbish too.“ [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_131] Sure the efforts are a work in progress but so is all of Wikipedia.

Yes WPMEDF has collaborations with the World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Our World in Data, Cochrane, the University of California School of Medicine, HealthPhone, Internet-in-a-Box, Kiwix (Wikimedia Switzerland), Translators Without Borders, ECGepedia, VideoWiki, Turnitin (copyright detection tool), and Radiopedia, among other organizations. These have led to release of content under open licenses and positive recognition for our movement. The goals of WPMEDF are inline with those of the Wikipedia editing community and these efforts have generally advanced our mission. We are not going to succeed at collecting the sum of all human knowledge by ourselves.

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 "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gout&diff=470680469&oldid=470434170&diffmode=source 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 and was published after the edit in question.[https://www.hindawi.com/journals/criu/2012/594905/] 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 User:Gout2012. I have removed protection from the pages in question.

With respect to gastroenteritis, replacing the name of a disease with that of a probable living person is vandalism.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gastroenteritis&diff=535766011&oldid=534963078&diffmode=source] Other IP vandalism.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gastroenteritis&type=revision&diff=472169030&oldid=471870518&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gastroenteritis&type=revision&diff=471503734&oldid=471234642&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gastroenteritis&type=revision&diff=472819781&oldid=472428627&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gastroenteritis&type=revision&diff=483574507&oldid=483550422&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gastroenteritis&type=revision&diff=483574963&oldid=483574742&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gastroenteritis&type=revision&diff=483636468&oldid=483575061&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gastroenteritis&type=revision&diff=487147924&oldid=486730624&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gastroenteritis&type=revision&diff=487148065&oldid=487147939&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gastroenteritis&type=revision&diff=490670089&oldid=490483165&diffmode=source]

The claims around dengue are false. When a vaccine came out in Dec 2015 it was added that month.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dengue_fever&type=revision&diff=694578768&oldid=694464515&diffmode=source] When concerns about the vaccine came out in 2017 they were rapidly added that month.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dengue_fever&type=revision&diff=813302972&oldid=809423584&diffmode=source] 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.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dengue_fever&type=revision&diff=937944475&oldid=936159047&diffmode=source] What was there was a Sept 2018 paper by WHO.[https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/274315/WER9336.pdf?ua=1] which 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.[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31515144/]

We have an entire section on the Down_syndrome#Name. Most of our medical articles only contain one of these minor spelling variations. I started the RfC in question. The majority disagree with my position and the new version is now in place. This is how Wikipedia works, not seeing the big deal.

With respect to Graham Beards concerns about my edit summary in this edit on March 30th 21:58.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atorvastatin&type=revision&diff=948234764&oldid=948222124&diffmode=source] This was preceded by a discussion on their talk page March 30th 2020 at 19:21 to which they never responded.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Graham_Beards&diff=948211468&oldid=948067277&diffmode=source] They had previously removed all details of cost March 30th at 16:37 from simvastatin.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simvastatin&diff=prev&oldid=948185292&diffmode=source]

Graham’s comments make it appear like I either added or supported the addition of Twitter and FB as references. I did neither. In fact I have removed such links.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=943984615&diff=prev&diffmode=source] GB did not feel WPMED deserved credit for work done on COVID19 despite User:Whispyhistory working a lot on the topic.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_132#Congrats%21_And_nice_job...] With respect to the claim that I do not see him as a peer, I did recommend that the journalist who wrote [https://slate.com/technology/2020/03/coronavirus-wikipedia-policies.html this piece] reach out to him due to their involvement. Simple put I do view them as a peer.

Per the rotavirus vaccine this account in 2016 added further details regarding price to the body of the article.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rotavirus_vaccine&type=revision&diff=732104456&oldid=726503680&diffmode=source] Sure the details in the lead should have been updated as well and I have done so based on the newer and more details reference. Yes I used "is" instead of "are".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rotavirus_vaccine&diff=prev&oldid=920159926&diffmode=source] in Oct of 2019, sure I made a minor grammatical error. Yes this map does represent the frequency of the disease in the populations in question and yes frequency can be used in this case synonymous with prevalence.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HBV_prevalence_2005.png] (with the frequency being high, intermediate, and low). The definition of frequency is "the rate at which something occurs within a given sample". This map lists the explicit percentages.[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/PrevalenceHepB.jpg][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PrevalenceHepB.jpg]

The community has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=139491451&oldid=139233596 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=373825833&oldid=371206691 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Style_guide&diff=373837741&oldid=373132360 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 {{tl|Infobox drug}} template and is about the infobox and wikidata, not article leads. Ozzie10aaaa [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3AInfobox_drug&type=revision&diff=674056886&oldid=674047810 supports], though is short on justification. Bluerasberry, on the other hand, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_drug&diff=674524266&oldid=674523372 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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Style_guide&diff=677260031&oldid=671181451 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=679523798&oldid=679454300 here]. He justifies the edit by citing the 2014 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Style_guide&diff=677361640&oldid=677345072 continues advocating for prices].

After adding prices to 100 drug articles by May 2016, James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Medicine&type=revision&diff=720444446&oldid=720438424 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=720515280&oldid=720513562 offers James his support], without any rationale. BlueRasbery [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=720547576&oldid=720546811 joins in with his advocacy]. James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Medicine&type=revision&diff=724633500&oldid=724632575 notes] {{tq|"Doctors Without Borders has done a fair bit of work to increase price transparency [https://web.archive.org/web/20170903002920/https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/sites/usa/files/fall_2015_alert.pdf] and this is something they are interested in collaborating on."}} About 40 participants discuss and are numerically split evenly.

Admin User:Jc37 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=729026823&oldid=729012811 closes] the RFC in July 2016: {{tq|"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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ivermectin&diff=914613319&oldid=914450326 notes industry lobby/censorship], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIvermectin&type=revision&diff=914792893&oldid=914643008 lawsuits about TV commercials] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ivermectin&diff=915245313&oldid=914825195 industry hiding costs]. At WP:NOT's talk page, James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=918974525&oldid=918949161 notes industry transparency issues] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=918974755&oldid=918974525 makes a comment about his personal experience]. At WikiProject Pharmacology, James makes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology&diff=918881272&oldid=917585008 further advocacy comments]. At WP:NOT, James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=920538364&oldid=920538355 says] (without providing evidence) that {{tq|"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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=928080275&oldid=928074940 a personal attack] on Colin. James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=928096396&oldid=928095954 posts] about the pharmaceutical industry suppressing medication price information and then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=928096900&oldid=928096396 accuses Colin]: {{tq|"That you are pushing the industry position to try to WP:CENZOR Wikipedia is concerning."}} James goes on to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=928222189&oldid=928219381 create a subheading "Knowledge equity"] where he expands his advocacy case. . The discussion continues on the MEDMOS talk page. Here QuackGuru [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=929430494&oldid=929425558 says] "NOT does not apply to medical content." (presumably referring to WP:NOT). James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=929588316&oldid=929572729 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=930204793&oldid=930204391 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=938284445&oldid=938197738 argues] that prices are critical to human health and hyperlinks to an advocacy organisation's story: "Secret medicine prices cost lives". James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=938919590&oldid=938919361 tries to dismiss that WP:NOTPRICE ever had consensus]. James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=938952176&oldid=938946252 selectively quotes] WP:NOTPRICE. QuackGuru [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=939288239&oldid=939180896 says readers may want to compare prices to other similar drugs]. BlueRasberry [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=940283746&oldid=940281711 argues that WP:NOT does not apply here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=940289921&oldid=940286729 that he is not concerned about current article content]. Later he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=943625403&oldid=942975647 makes a further dismissal of WP:NOT]. BlueRasberry [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=942467830&oldid=942380259 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment&type=revision&diff=950636950&oldid=950538722 criticises the RFC and those who drafted it].

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.

• Abacavir [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abacavir&diff=748528106&oldid=746904664 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abacavir&diff=748530000&oldid=748529914 restore] after 16 minutes.
• Aciclovir [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aciclovir&diff=708810507&oldid=708810570 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aciclovir&diff=708879106&oldid=708812385 restore] after 7 hours
• Ampicillin [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ampicillin&diff=770146656&oldid=768587529 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ampicillin&diff=770147551&oldid=770146656 restore] after 6 minutes
• Aspirin [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aspirin&diff=877703295&oldid=875547710 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aspirin&diff=877734541&oldid=877703295 restore] after 4.5 hours
• Buprenorphine [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buprenorphine&diff=917261610&oldid=911714313 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buprenorphine&diff=918878115&oldid=917405850 restore]
• Buprenorphine/naloxone [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buprenorphine/naloxone&diff=917261051&oldid=917176933 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buprenorphine/naloxone&diff=917401632&oldid=917261051 restore] after 16 hours [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buprenorphine/naloxone&diff=918714159&oldid=917401632 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buprenorphine/naloxone&diff=918849459&oldid=918714159 restore] after 15 hours [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buprenorphine/naloxone&diff=918875153&oldid=918849459 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buprenorphine/naloxone&diff=918875358&oldid=918875153 restore] after 1 minute
• Cholecalciferol [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cholecalciferol&diff=789068795&oldid=787843813 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cholecalciferol&diff=789069119&oldid=789068795 restore] after 4 minutes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cholecalciferol&diff=804981597&oldid=804980339 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cholecalciferol&diff=805125684&oldid=804981597 restored] next day [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cholecalciferol&diff=826668299&oldid=825070742 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cholecalciferol&diff=826804318&oldid=826668530 restore] next day [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cholecalciferol&diff=839300950&oldid=839300422 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cholecalciferol&diff=839415646&oldid=839325208 restore] next day [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cholecalciferol&diff=839417137&oldid=839415646 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cholecalciferol&diff=839417805&oldid=839417137 restore] six minutes.
• Clarithromycin [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarithromycin&diff=690232861&oldid=690232375 move to body] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarithromycin&diff=690524883&oldid=690233050 restored to lead] next day.
• Clindamycin [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clindamycin&diff=826881304&oldid=826880765 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clindamycin&diff=826992965&oldid=826916949 restored] next day.
• Condom [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Condom&diff=865339461&oldid=865079431 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Condom&diff=865442212&oldid=865340083 restore]
• Emtricitabine/tenofovir [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emtricitabine/tenofovir&diff=922613797&oldid=922607825 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emtricitabine/tenofovir&diff=922671070&oldid=922656916 restore] after 9 hours.
• Ethosuximide [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethosuximide&diff=948010701&oldid=936680663 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethosuximide&diff=948066374&oldid=948010701 restored] after 5 hours.
• Gabapentin [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabapentin&diff=704156134&oldid=703030841 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabapentin&diff=704196038&oldid=704159048 restored] after 5.5 hours.
• Gentamicin [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gentamicin&diff=689093649&oldid=689091751 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gentamicin&diff=689902905&oldid=689902786 restored] after 5 days.
• Ivermectin Massive edit war involving Doc James, Ozzie10aaaa, QuackGuru vs Ronz and Seraphimblade. See User:Colin/PriceEdits#Ivermectin.
• Lactulose [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lactulose&diff=772179363&oldid=772176233 reduced] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lactulose&diff=772241002&oldid=772180136 restored] next day [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lactulose&diff=772285765&oldid=772241118 revised] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lactulose&diff=772286354&oldid=772285927 restored] after 9 minutes.
• Metformin [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metformin&diff=726496627&oldid=726484534 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metformin&diff=726502123&oldid=726501739 restored] after 45 minutes.
• Methocarbamol [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Methocarbamol&diff=840786845&oldid=840759784 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Methocarbamol&diff=891546652&oldid=885338172 restore].
• Risperidone [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Risperidone&diff=710933203&oldid=710932245 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Risperidone&diff=710956837&oldid=710933203 restore].
• Salbutamol [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salbutamol&diff=720246694&oldid=720243100 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salbutamol&diff=720273045&oldid=720246694 restore] after 3 hours.
• Simvastatin Edit war involved Doc James and Ozzie10aaa vs WhatamIdoing, SandyGeorgia, Graham Beards, Hipal/Ronz, Seraphimblade. Examples: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simvastatin&diff=947925558&oldid=937426700 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simvastatin&diff=948064020&oldid=947925558 restore] after 17 hours [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simvastatin&diff=948185292&oldid=948097756 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simvastatin&diff=948210475&oldid=948188006 restore] after 3 hours [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simvastatin&diff=948241794&oldid=948240971 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simvastatin&diff=948250513&oldid=948248745 restore] after 1 hour [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simvastatin&diff=948251099&oldid=948250513 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simvastatin&diff=948252609&oldid=948251099 restore] after 13 minutes.
• Thiamine [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thiamine&diff=773272615&oldid=772173093 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thiamine&diff=773300375&oldid=773276042 restore] after 3 hours.
• Valaciclovir [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valaciclovir&diff=909068268&oldid=909067887 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valaciclovir&diff=909725451&oldid=909679775 restore] after 5 days.
• Valproate [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valproate&diff=689100996&oldid=687228475 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valproate&diff=689894011&oldid=689141291 restore] after 6 days.
• Vitamin C [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitamin_C&diff=812362721&oldid=812285462 remove] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitamin_C&diff=812484347&oldid=812483003 restore] after 14 hours

Ian Furst, I cannot find a single time when I have been critical of you personally. I have been critical of VideoWiki, which has largely been promoted by James, but that is content plus a set of tools, and we clearly disagree on its merits. My only personal interaction with you I can recall is when we crossed paths in 2013 over an issue (with another editor) at Water fluoridation, an article that I played a minor role in aiding Eubulides to get to FA. I gave you some friendly advice about potential COI in an article you were drafting and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=539826860&diff=prev you thanked me for helping a newbie].

Wrt VideoWiki criticism, here are just a few examples of issues in articles today.

• Each of the following videos have tags visible in the Closed Captions, and have done since they were created a year ago: HIV/AIDS, Cholera, Cystic fibrosis, Polio, Hypertension, Influenza, Malaria, Multiple sclerosis, Sepsis, Urinary tract infection. [Note: this was fixed by James after my post. An example of the problematic timed-text can be found at :commons:TimedText:Wikipedia-VideoWiki-Hypertension.webm.en.srt.]
• Any images included in the video that are square or portrait-shaped, are squashed to 16:9 landscape. Examples at 2:18 of HIV, 1:24 of Cholera, 2:28 Cystic fibrosis, the first two frames of Polio, a very squashed pregnant lady with Hypertension at 2:34 who also has Malaria at 2:04. The archive footage at 0:32 of Multiple sclerosis is so vertically distorted as to appear barely human. The worst is really the poor little lad at 2:23 of Sepsis. [Note: this was somewhat fixed by James after my post. The video now contains images in the correct aspect ratio, but behind them is a blurred stretched version of the image which is often quite distracting, for example the lead frame at Sepsis. ]
• Major_depressive_disorder has an upside-down photo. You can even see it on the script page. [Note: this was fixed by James after my post.]
• There is a video, which I won't name here, that in the very first frame identifies by name a person with a socially stigmatising disease. The source image was taken down on Commons with a DMCA notice after lawyers contacted WMF, citing the distress it was causing their client. James commented at Commons on the case, and patched up the article lead image after its removal. The image was removed by Commons-delinker from the VideoWiki script. However, the VideoWiki video still contains it seven months later, and is still present on a major article that gets about 5000 hits every day (I can email diffs/links to arbs)

When James removed the constraint on adding price from both medical style guides (see above), User:Johnbod [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Style_guide&diff=677262569&oldid=677260167 objected], saying {{tq|"I'm in favour of discussing it where it is exceptionally high, & discussed as such in sources (see above), but we do not want people adding the (inevitably) USD prices of standard cheapish out-of-patent drugs, & proposing their favourite sources etc. Or international tables... Something needs to be added to say so."}} and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Style_guide&diff=677319111&oldid=677264637 warned] {{tq|"I don't think we should just remove all MOS controls on the topic. Inappropriate factoids often get added by well-meaning editors, & editors need a simple MOS reference to quote when removing them."}}. How precient. After the most recent RFC a couple of test edits were made to remove some database-sourced prices from two articles (see Barkeep's evidence). James restored those prices and expanded on the cost section in the body with yet more prices: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simvastatin&type=revision&diff=948097756&oldid=947925558 Simvastatin] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethosuximide&type=revision&diff=948084962&oldid=948010701 Ethosuximide]. I shall discuss cost text in the workshop/analysis. James's edits demonstrate not only a disregard for consensus but a poor and ultimately harmful approach to adding content to Wikipedia, which frequently brings him into conflict with editors. This isn't article writing, it is just factoid insertion.

• While we all agree a "price" is a numerical value in some currency, RexxS suggests that "pricing information" means "general prose descriptions like 'relatively inexpensive'" There is no evidence presented that any editor has considered that meaning before, and it seems unlikely to catch on since "information" can be presented in many ways, verbally or numerically. Strictly, "pricing" is a verb, and refers to the process by which companies and health systems agree on a price to charge and pay. But editors have clearly used both words to refer to numerical prices in articles. As a general topic, we all agree that drug pricing merits articles. The conflict, until very recently, has been nearly exclusively over the inclusion of numerical prices in articles, and I suggest the RFC and its closure was primarily interested in such prices. I suggest that if there is uncertainty about what an editor or closing admin meant by their choice of words, that they be asked. The issue of using adjectives or relative prices has received comparably little discussion, and the hasty addition of such clauses into article leads by James, followed by the creation of two poll-style RFCs, is part of the reason why this Arbcom was instigated. The issue of describing drug costs verbally needs further work.
• RexxS offers only two NOTPRICE interpretations, but does not supply any evidence that any editor holds them. I am not aware of any editor who thinks "no prices or pricing information relating to drugs should be in Wikipedia". Nor am I aware of any editor who has suggested or protested against the kind of price comparison service RexxS describes. One editor has proposed adding an external link to GoodRX in the infobox, but not gone as far as to suggest Wikipedia offer that service today. BlueRasberry, James and QuackGuru have all strongly advocated that Wikipedia should be a price comparison service between drugs: that American readers may discover that WonderStatin is cheaper than SuperStatin and be empowered to ask their doctor for a cheaper prescription.
• RexxS's description of editor-interpretations of NOTPRICE is significantly lacking in the aspects that many editors have felt to be vital. Cherry-picking of only some of this policy, or at times the denial it even exists (as James, Ozzie and BlueRasberry have all done), is what brings us to Arbcom.
• Wrt the 2016 closing statement, RexxS appears to make a fundamental error of logic. I shall expand on this in the Workshop, but essentially WP:NOT is about not doing things, and one cannot use it to suggest we are therefore compelled to do some things. There are further obstacles to including text on Wikipedia, not least WP:WEIGHT.
• Wrt the 2020 closing statement, RexxS quotes only a minority of points. In addition to the removal of prices from the lead, the closing statements made it clear (first and second bullet points) that prices derived solely from drug product database are not permitted -- they need to come from secondary sources that include commentary on the significance of that price. This, at a stroke, means nearly all the prices James has added to drug article leads should be removed, and not transferred to the body as James did. Since the main focus of that RFC was on prices derived solely from a drug product database, it is notable that this key finding is being overlooked by some.
• The statement "Since the 2020 RfC closed, prices have been systematically removed from the lead of articles" is not supported by any evidence. I am aware of four articles where editors removed prices from the lead, shortly after the RFC closed. There are 540+ articles with such prices.

• 30 March. User:Graham Beards [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atorvastatin&diff=948222124&oldid=945167631 removes] prices from the lead, edit summary: "deleted drug "cost" from the Lead as per RfC". This RFC closed saying prices should not be in the lead and prices should not be solely sourced to drug product databases, which two prices here (US and UK) were.
• 30 March. User:Doc James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atorvastatin&diff=948222124&oldid=945167631 restores] the prices to the body, and adds a statement "Atorvastatin is relatively inexpensive" to both the body and lead, citing a textbook. The edit summary "adjusted" is the same one James used in conflict to restore prices to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethosuximide&diff=948066374&oldid=948010701 Ethosuximide] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simvastatin&diff=948064020&oldid=947925558 Simvastatin]. The database-sourced prices should not have been restored.
• 1 April. User:Hipal [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atorvastatin&diff=948576350&oldid=948575943 asks on talk] "How about removing all mention of pricing from the lede per the RfC and the content policies cited there?"
• 2 April. User:Hipal [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atorvastatin&diff=948709494&oldid=948576350 asks again] "Any objections to my removing it from the lede per RfC and policies?"
• 4 April. User:Hipal [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atorvastatin&diff=949078936&oldid=948281773 removes] "and is relatively inexpensive" from the lead, edit summary: "per recent RfC, pricing information in lede is almost never appropriate - nothing here demonstrates it is one of the few exceptions"
• 4 April. User:Hipal [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atorvastatin&diff=949079525&oldid=948709494 notes his removal on talk].
• 4 April. User:Doc James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atorvastatin&diff=949089785&oldid=949079065 reverts Hipal with Twinkle], edit summary "No support for this". Admin Doc James is now edit warring.
• 4 April. User:Doc James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atorvastatin&diff=949090007&oldid=949079525 comments at talk] "Of course plenty of objection and we have a RfC here Talk:Simvastatin#Clarification_of_RfC were support is overwhelming."
• 22 April. User:Seraphimblade [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atorvastatin&diff=952429097&oldid=951474060 reverts James], edit summary "WP:NOPRICES as well as an explicit RfC." Admin Seraphimblade is now edit warring.
• 22 April. User:RexxS [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atorvastatin&diff=952517989&oldid=952429097 reverts Seraphimblade], edit summary "revert removal of sourced information per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 84 #Price of medications. This is not a price". Admin RexxS is now edit warring.
• 22 April. User:RexxS [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atorvastatin&diff=952519426&oldid=949309956 writes on talk] "Following a unilateral decision to remove the phrase "and is relatively inexpensive", I have restored it." Rexx introduces his novel distinction between "price" and "pricing information" (the former being numerical and the latter textual, according to RexxS).
• 22 April. User:Seraphimblade [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atorvastatin&diff=952542798&oldid=952517989 reverts RexxS], edit summary "Mentions of cost are price, and are covered by the 2020, not 2016, RfC. "Inexpensive" is mentioned only in passing by one source in a brief blurb. That is not the type of in-depth coverage the new RfC requires for lead inclusion, which is why it has repeatedly been removed. It stays out". Admin Seraphimblade continues to edit war.
• 22 April. User:RexxS [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atorvastatin&diff=952545100&oldid=952542798 reverts Seraphimblade], edit summary "Don't edit war - there is an open talk page discussion that you have not engaged in". Admin RexxS continues to edit war.
• 22 April. User:Hipal [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atorvastatin&diff=952546068&oldid=952545596 says on talk] "RexxS, you're edit-warring. Your interpretation of the RfC has no consensus."
• 22 April. User:RexxS [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atorvastatin&diff=952553575&oldid=952548736 says on talk] "Hipal your partisan stance is already well-known. The edit warring was begun by Seraphimblade when they redid their bold removal of content which was reverted. I am editing in accordance with consensus; they are not. I already know what belongs in lead sections."
• 22 April. User:Hipal [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atorvastatin&diff=952556812&oldid=952553575 on talk] objects to being dismissed.
• 22 April. User:RexxS [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atorvastatin&diff=952560900&oldid=952558528 on talk] RexxS appears frustrated that Hipal does not accept RexxS's terminology, which he says originated with Hipal: "The differentiation between prices and pricing is absolutely clear, and you're the one who made it." RexxS says to Hipal: "I no longer believe you are making a good-faith attempt to resolve differences". RexxS warns: "I'll continue to edit according to policy."

The areas where James brings himself into greatest conflict are where he makes widespread controversial edits, without seeking or gaining consensus, by stealth and editing alone rather than in collaboration with others.

James, in his evidence, states that "Rich content, such as video, was the second most requested improvement in the 2015 readers survey" What we don't know, because they weren't asked, is if this rich content is "The article subject as a seven minute video in a lecture format aimed at Canadian medical students, top and tailed with promotional logos and links for a subscription learning platform." It could instead be readers wanted interactive features (BMI calculator), animated diagrams or short video clips, something all of us agree on. User:Colin/OsmosisEdits documents the edits made to add or remove the Osmosis videos to 308 articles. Only 21 additions (7%) had the meaningful edit summary "added video"; 152 (50%) have the meaningless "added"; 124 (41%) are blank and 9 (3%) suggested other activity. These videos were added by James without community approval and by stealth.

The English-Wikipedia part of the Translation Task Force is James. It has been a source of conflict with English Wikipedia for many years. It mainly affects article leads, for that is all that gets translated. Conflicts include an early push for all medical articles to use the same few citation templates (other Wikis don't have our variety), the forcing of excess citations into the leads, the dumbing down of our leads to make translation easier (apparently), or the insertion of material into the leads alone (e.g. drug prices).

This is well documented elsewhere in the evidence. User:Colin/PriceEdits lists 530 articles with prices in the lead. With hardly any exception, all the prices in leads were added by James, sourced to drug product price databases. He began this task without asking anyone if adding the prices to the lead met community approval, and when in 2016, after adding 100, he did ask, he didn't get consensus to continue adding them. Yet he still did. And here we are at Arbcom.

There are 500 medicines in the WHO Essential Medicines list. This binary fact was added by James to every such drug lead as: "It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, the safest and most effective medicines needed in a health system."

• Carbamazepine [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carbamazepine&type=revision&diff=653963039&oldid=653925590 edited]

In James's evidence, he cites "[https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Readability_of_English_Wikipedia%27s_health_information_over_time a published analysis]" on the "Readability of English Wikipedia's health information over time". What James neglects to mention is that this paper was co-written by James himself and published at our own WikiJournal of Medicine. The paper relies on readability formulas, which are a peculiarly American pseudo science. Naively simple algorithms, designed before A.I. was a thing, count long words and sentence length and perform some dubious maths to concoct a score corresponding with an American school grade. The article [https://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2019/07/readability-formulas-7-reasons-to-avoid-them-and-what-to-do-instead.php Readability Formulas: 7 Reasons to Avoid Them and What to Do Instead] by Jarrett and Redish provides a good overview of their problems and how good writers focus on something other than a grade score generated by a computer. Even if we accept the claim that easy and difficult texts are correlated with lower and higher scores, it does not follow that lowering the score means the text is easier to read and understand or that is engaging in any way.

• 29 March. Colin [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethosuximide&diff=948010701&oldid=936680663 removes] the numerical prices from the lead. Edit summary: "per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices". James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethosuximide&diff=948066374&oldid=948010701 restores] these prices to the body. The edit summary "adjusted" is the same one James used in conflict to restore prices to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atorvastatin&diff=948222124&oldid=945167631 Atorvastatin] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simvastatin&diff=948064020&oldid=947925558 Simvastatin]. The database-sourced prices should not have been restored.
• 30 March. James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethosuximide&type=revision&diff=948084962&oldid=948066374 expands] the cost text to include the statement in the lead and the body that {{tq|"As of 2008 it was generally affordable in most areas of the world"}} citing a textbook. James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&diff=948083844&oldid=814816850 posts on talk] a new section on Affordability. His source is a Google Book result for the search 'Ethosuximide cost'. As with many books freely readable at Google Books, the textbook is an ancient second-edition from 2004, not 2008 as the article claims. The third and fourth editions of this textbook drop "ethosuximide" from the list of generally affordable medicines.
• 31 March. SandyGeorgia [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethosuximide&diff=948251933&oldid=948247187 removes] this additional body and lead text. Edit summary "revert per discussion post-RFC [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=948251744#Ethosuximide here,] will separately reinstate infobox changes as needed". James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethosuximide&diff=948252757&oldid=948252148 reverts] Sandy with edit summary "Not what the RfC says". Admin James is now edit warring. SandyGeorgia [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethosuximide&diff=948253748&oldid=948252757 tags] the text as "disputed". James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEthosuximide&type=revision&diff=948254681&oldid=948254049 begins an RFC] asking for votes in support of the sentence he added to the lead. He says {{tq|"we have textbook by a well respect medical publisher"}} but neglects to mention it is 16 years old, and there are two more recent editions, both of which demonstrate the statement James added is not true. SandyGeorgia [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&diff=948255121&oldid=948254681 objects] to the voting and {{tq|"yet another RFC to dispute the already held RFC"}} and {{tq|"the use of 2001 data from one country to support price statements"}} James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&diff=948255387&oldid=948255290 offers another source]. This is a Google Books result for the search 'Ethosuximide inexpensive' and is from 2005. SandyGeorgia [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&diff=948256458&oldid=948255624 complains] the source is two decades old. WhatamIdoing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&diff=948259851&oldid=948257393 opposes] the voting-style RFC and asks for a discussion instead.
• 1 April. Hipal [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&diff=948575778&oldid=948490224 says] {{tq|"I don't see the point of responding to these biased RfC's. They're clearly efforts at IDHT and CONLOCAL. The ArbCom case should sort these behavioural problems out"}}
• 3 April. Ozzie10aaaa [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&diff=948907632&oldid=948575778 supports] {{tq|"I support based on sources, just to clarify as I never write this much it should be noted that references speak for themselves, I hope this matter can be solved, thank you"}}.
• 5 April. WhatamIdoing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&diff=949318920&oldid=949290574 points out] that the price Colin removed and James restored "a couple of hours later" was in fact text James agreed during the RFC was unacceptable. James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethosuximide&type=revision&diff=949339141&oldid=948256064 makes further changes] to add availability info to the lead, to change "developing world" to "from an NGO in the Democratic Republic of Congo" and to and an Italian retail price from 2001 (though James writes 2011). WhatamIdoing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&diff=949325058&oldid=949320438 writes] that the RFC close clearly made the MSH Price Guide an unacceptable sole source and suggests James asks the closing admins for clarification. James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEthosuximide&type=revision&diff=949328297&oldid=949326015 writes] (wrt the closing admins) "They also say [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=948178365&oldid=948177935 "database which covers some ground and does not require interpretation... should be discussed at the talk page"]. We could write "[...]" That requires no interpretation as required." WhatamIdoing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&diff=949330071&oldid=949329441 responds]: {{tq|"I'm really surprised and dismayed that you left out so much of the sentence you quote there. James, that's "selective" to the point of seeming dishonest"}} and goes on to quote the whole sentence and {{tq|"The sentence you (mis-)quote is about hypothetical other databases, not about MSH's IMPPG database. And it doesn't say that these other databases are acceptable; it only says that there's a possibility that some hypothetical and heretofore undiscussed database might not have the same fatal problems."}}
• 6 April. Wugapodes (a closing admin) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&diff=949373296&oldid=949371027 responds] that the RFC was clear about the sentence using the MSH price being unacceptable. WhatamIdoing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&diff=949447814&oldid=949447523 posts] {{tq|I think that, given Wugapodes' statement at 03:23, 6 April 2020 above, that this sentence will be removed as soon as Doc James has had a moment to catch up on his watchlist"}}. James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&diff=949448670&oldid=949447814 says] {{tq|Sure and the sentence discussing in the RfC is no longer in the article.}} WhatamIdoing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&diff=949497499&oldid=949477975 is unconvinced]: {{tq|But, it does still seem to be in the article?"}} Wugapodes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&diff=949509050&oldid=949506451 responds again] that James's change to the article text is still problematic, but shies from declaring {{tq|"a blanket ban on the MSH IMPPG database"}}. James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&diff=949523722&oldid=949523252 responds] {{tq|"WAID I think given Wugapodes' statement at 21:43, 6 April 2020 their is not justification to remove this sentence."}}

• 6 April. After several editors have already complained about multiple new RFCs on article talk pages, RexxS [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&diff=949469396&oldid=949452699 posts a set of nine new questions] {{tq|"to look at the bigger picture"}}. Six of these are general questions about any drug and cost, such as {{tq|"Do we agree that drug articles can have a section on Cost?"}} Colin [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethosuximide&diff=949505681&oldid=949498965 objects] to the location of this new nine-pointer discussion on an article talk page that not even been used till this dispute: {{tq| I don't think it is helpful to contemplate further areas of agreement/disagreement on drug prices in this Ethosuximide talk page. This is an article surely that until a few days ago was likely on a couple of people's watchlist.}} It is clear that RexxS misunderstands and thinks Colin is trying to shut down debate: {{tq|"If you are genuinely interested in finding areas of compromise, rather than insisting that your own view should prevail, then I would have hoped you would have welcomed attempts to isolate the disagreements.}} Later he complains {{tq|"you don't seem to have done us the courtesy of indicating the sources that support your assertion, and that really isn't helpful"}} (Colin has, in fact, given sources earlier). RexxS adds {{tq|"If you were to try to find some common ground, you would find that over-egging a reasonable argument (20-year-old prices) merely serves to diminish it."}}

As part of the ANI close restrictions wrt drug prices, discussion on the topic was remitted to one venue only: the MEDMOS talk page. Barkeep encouraged editors to use his talk page if they want to complain about other editors, rather than posting such complaints at the MEDMOS discussion. WhatamIdoing created a draft RFC at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices.

• Talk:Ethosuximide#RfC demonstrates a good faith effort on Doc James part to discuss whatever issues, however if you read the text the RfC is rejected--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

:*1.response to SandyGeorgia,.....yes I often keep an eye on Doc James due to his Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Stats/Top_medical_editors_2019_(all), as a consequence I try to chime in on any medical articles he may be on (AFTER READING, AND DECIDING WHAT IS BEST FOR ARTICLE), he is an elite editor and therefore I try to learn as much as possible from him. However I do not always agree w/ Doc James as SG noted on their post or on many occasions I simply do not give an opinion, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

:*1.reponse to Colin,...…(see above answer to SG, thank you)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Sandygeorgia routinely speaks with a negative tone. In the RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices this user tells me what they think of my contributions to Wikipedia.

Colin routinely speaks with a negative tone. In the RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices this user tells me what they think of my contributions to Wikipedia.

Routinely and with regularity, Colin and Sandy have been opposed to WikiProject Medicine proposals. Friendly criticism is not the issue. The problem is excessive focus on WikiProject Medicine with negativity. This behavior is hounding, stalking, harassment, flaming, trolling, griefing, or misconduct by any name. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject, a "WikiProject" is a group of people who want to work together to improve Wikipedia. Colin and Sandy do not travel to WikiProject Medicine to seek collaboration, but rather to engage in a pattern of disruption. Their objections to WikiProject Medicine activities, whether reasonable or unreasonable, are no justification for the continuous negativity.

A "Wikipedia proposal" is any new idea, workflow, tool, endeavor, partnership, or subproject in which a group of people publicly share and develop plans to engage in some collaborative activity with the Wikipedia community. Some proposals are good, some are bad, and most are so-so. Regardless of the quality of a proposal, everyone who presents one deserves civil behavior.

File:Top edits to English Wikipedia drug prices RfC 2020.png

In the context of the RfC I complained of SandyGeorgia's behavior. It was my error that I agreed to tolerate the toxic behavior and focus on Sandy and Colin's ideas. Now I feel that toxic behavior is never worth condoning.

Wiki Project Med Foundation is not relevant to this case because it is not a block of votes to influence the issues in this case. I mention the organization here because it gets mention in this case. Wiki Project Med Foundation is a registered Wikimedia movement affiliate in good standing with the Wikimedia Foundation. It does programs as described in its annual reports on Meta Wiki at :meta:Wiki Project Med.

Judging from my own sampling (User:Hipal/scope), as well as that of Colin (User:Colin/ExistingPrices and User:Colin/PriceEdits, included in his evidence), Doc James has been adding pricing information to hundreds of medicine articles. It appears to include all of :Category:World Health Organization essential medicines (currently 463 entries), minus the few (nine?) entries that are not specifically medicines). My sampling has found articles not Colin's list ({{la|Artesunate/mefloquine}} and {{la|Artesunate/pyronaridine}}).

Doc James, with extremely few exceptions, has placed pricing information only into the article lead.

As seen in User:Colin/ExistingPrices, User:Colin/PriceEdits, User:Colin/PriceMistakes, and in the WP:MEDMOS2020 RfC; the pricing information added by Doc James is rife with content violations. There are widespread WP:V/WP:OR problems in the way data has been used, interpreted, and presented. Pricing information is being given undue weight. Cherry-picking of information is common, mostly for RECENTISM purposes. Doc James' focus is to present recent pricing information, without regard to pricing history.

The dispute at Ivermectin started as concerns over including pricing information in the lead of the article:

The edit-warring and other problems at Ivermectin are well documented. I want to highlight my first interaction with Doc James in this dispute:

• {{la|IPhone 11}}
• At the Ivermectin talk page, Doc James identified IPhone 11 as an example of pricing in another article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIvermectin&type=revision&diff=918096916&oldid=918084032]
• I remove the content from IPhone 11 "per NOPRICES, POV" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPhone_11&type=revision&diff=918228864&oldid=918215867]
• Doc James restores it because it has "been in the article a long time" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPhone_11&type=revision&diff=918858213&oldid=918849294]

• User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_157#Prices_for_medications
• Doc James continues to selectively ignore past RfCs, policy, and consensus. Instead he once again refers to the essay [Wikipedia:Prices.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoc_James&type=revision&diff=918879676&oldid=918876780]
• Doc James does not respond to my multiple requests asking him to stop edit warring.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoc_James&type=revision&diff=918875428&oldid=918874938][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoc_James&type=revision&diff=918876418&oldid=918875849]
• Doc James once again offers a BATTLEGROUND explanation and justification for his editing {{tq|We know that the pharmaceutical industry is trying really hard to hide medication prices with ongoing legal cases in the United States.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoc_James&type=revision&diff=918882390&oldid=918881354]
• Doc James does not respond to my question about what was brought up in the 2016 RfC.

Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_57#Clarification_requested_for_product_pricing_(Sales_catalogues)

The MEDMOS2020 RfC identified original research and pov problems across hundreds of articles. In the follow discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices_/currently_at_ArbCom Doc James stated that the RfC only applies to numerical prices, then used it to support more edit-warring across multiple articles:

• Addition to Sulfasalazine on 13 April [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sulfasalazine&type=revision&diff=950761990&oldid=950682894]
• Expansion at Febuxostat on the 15th [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Febuxostat&type=revision&diff=951134963&oldid=951134467], Salbutamol on the 12th [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salbutamol&type=revision&diff=950428118&oldid=950379673]
• Rework and expansion in Methocarbamol on the 14th [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Methocarbamol&type=revision&diff=950973303&oldid=950971612]

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.

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)

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&type=revision&diff=942406531&oldid=942402058 expressed confusion] about what the RfC was asking. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&type=revision&diff=942406531&oldid=942402058 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&type=revision&diff=949296193&oldid=949240330 claimed] (on my talk page) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&type=revision&diff=949339395&oldid=949313429 claimed] (on the article talk page) that he thought the RfC that I'd begun at his suggestion was about a pipe link.

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.

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. A clear win for either side could be highly detrimental to the encyclopaedia.

As others have noted, this can be seen as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FMedicine%2FWorkshop&type=revision&diff=951318460&oldid=951318338 a conduct dispute]. Given the nature of submissions so far, this case is no longer just about drug prices. The outcome [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=951087044 has a bearing] on the Docs future participation in senior roles.

Back in Jan 2019 I noted it would be good if Sandy & Colin returned to being [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=880512677 "leading lights on the MEDS project. "] . That was based on considerable attention to their work (as explained [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&diff=prev&oldid=881007565 here].) On reflection, while I still look back at the years leading up to 2012 as a golden age, with a standard of FA writing that may never be surpassed, I'm no longer sure it would be desirable for folk like Colin to displace the current leadership of the MEDS team. We weren't clearly in a post truth age back in 2012. The world has moved on, and it's likely for the best that a new generation of MEDS editors have become prominent.

Wikipedia has [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_WikiProject_Medicine_articles| about 50,000 MEDS articles], many of which are attractive to quacks, pov pushers, and/or corporate shills. It seems unrealistic to expect a small number good editors to defend such a wide attack surface with the perfectionist approach. As good doctor Furst clearly explains, there's a need for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=952277865 "quicker edits"].

As others have noted, the Doc is typically a "polite" editor, who {{tq|will engage with anyone willing to discus}} and is {{tq|encouraging of other opinions}}. Here's a recent example, where Doc James helped out an editor who very recently was a leading adversary on how to present our most high profile Covid articles. Back in mid Feb, editor Almaty asked me to check out his "diplomacy", which in context I understood to mean his debating against the Doc re Covid, so I kept an eye on the situation. While it led me to personally intervene with a couple of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic&diff=prev&oldid=947118455 little nudges] to ensure Almaty prevailed in a key RfC, that was only due to social factors favouring the Doc. On the scholarship dimension, it was pretty much no contest, as you'd expect when even the brightest generalist AE doc trys to debate with a specialist on their own field. But despite the hammering the Doc took from Almaty, he was the first to step in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Almaty&diff=prev&oldid=951356428| to support] ending Almaty's Covid topic ban and even [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Almaty&diff=prev&oldid=951356614 awarded them a barnstar]. I always knew the Doc would react like that, rather than push his advantage, as it's the sort of fine character the Doc is all about. Yet it's rather exceptional, we all know that when even your typical good editor has a wiki adversary over a barrel, they don't often show exactly that sort of love for their enemy.

Editors have argued that the Doc has violated RGW/advocacy with his position re prices. This seems correct. Even years back the Doc saw prices as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_84#Public_health_issue "a critically important aspect of global health"] which they echoed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=prev&oldid=938284445 this January].

WAID states they don't think they've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=953285305 "entirely figured" out] what this case is all about. I'd say that's accurate. So not sure why they're warning us to be suspicious of "us-versus-them statements" . As Barkeep has stated, WAID {{tq|seems to be respected by all}} – they're clearly a very good natured and intelligent editor who obviously knows a lot about medicine. But they seem too peaceful to understand the contours of conflict here. To clarify, drug prices are largely just as Casus belli for a power struggle with at least 8 years of history, with Colin & Co on one side, and Doc James and his crew on the other. WAID is on Colin's side, even if they're too good natured to know it, while Tryptofish stands with the Doc.

This appears to be by far the most perilous Arb case Ive ever seen. A clear win for the Doc seems unconscionable. It might demotivate some of the few editors who can produce truly beautiful & exceptionally accurate encyclopaedic content. And at the end of the day, policy is policy. On technical grounds, overall it does appear to be Docs' crew who were the more non compliant. While the new evidence added in the last few hours does show un-collegiality by Colin, especially Trypto's demonstration that he's been known to double down with his hyper criticism, it's unclear that recent conduct is at a level where an admonishment is warranted.

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.

• 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 in MEDMOS 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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_19#Drug_pricing_reminder] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_67#Prices] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_78#Reliable_sources_for_drug_pricing.3F]
• July 9, 2016 jc37 closes the RfC with the close of {{tqq|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 in MEDMOS expanding on James' language.
• A series of edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=next&oldid=919066283] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=next&oldid=919066463] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=next&oldid=919067106] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=next&oldid=919094809] by Doc James and QuackGuru ensue about placement and wording.
• October 11 WAID further [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FMedicine-related_articles&type=revision&diff=920806245&oldid=920467755 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FMedicine-related_articles&type=revision&diff=926140116&oldid=923592704 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FMedicine-related_articles&type=revision&diff=927027407&oldid=926141360 series of further changes] in response to Colin's edits, including one to product pricing whose edit summary is {{tqq|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 about MEDMOS.
• 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 {{noping|JzG|label1=Guy}} proposes a four point plan for moving forward. There is nearly unanimous support.
• December 7, 2019 19:53 Barkeep49 closes thread 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.
• {{noping|Peter coxhead}} reverts three minutes after that.
• Barkeep49 fully protects the guideline 22 minutes later.
• December 21, 2019 {{noping|Tryptofish}} creates a proposed 2020 RfC format
• December 26, 2019 Tryptofish creates a second 2020 RfC format draft which is publicly shared January 2nd.
• December 22, 2019 SandyGeorgia [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_lead_guideline_for_medicine-related_articles&oldid=932020136 launches] an RfC on the guidelines for the lead
• January 28 {{noping|Ymblanter}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_lead_guideline_for_medicine-related_articles&oldid=938008845 closes] the RfC as no consensus.
• January 1, 2020 WhatamIdoing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&oldid=933608668 proposes] an 2020 RfC structure
• After discussion and revision this would be the template for the 2020 RfC which is launched
• January 7, 2020 Barkeep49 updates AN on the dispute both on the 2020 RfC and conduct. This includes asking for closers.
• Over the next few weeks, Ymblanter and {{noping|Wugapodes}} volunteer to be closers.
• January 20, 2020 {{noping|Rosguill}} responds to a plea from WhatamIdoing to be the sysop to certify the 2020 RfC is neutral
• January 7, 2020 {{noping|Casliber}} launches an RfC about the order of sections in the guideline
• February 9, 2020 {{noping|Cunard}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=939843069&oldid=939440896#RfC_about_the_ordering_of_sections_within_Diseases_or_disorders_or_syndromes closes] the RfC as no change.
• January 23, 2020 Barkeep49 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&oldid=937268145 launches] the 2020 RfC on pricing
• March 7, 2020 Ymblanter marks the 2020 RfC as closing
• March 27, 2020 Wugapodes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices&diff=947686699&oldid=944398989 closes] the 2020 RfC

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:QuackGuru 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
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQuackGuru&type=revision&diff=441111231&oldid=438700979 July 23, 2011] topic banned from {{tqq|pseudoscience and chiropractic, broadly construed, for one year.}}
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=684429623&oldid=684155654 October 6, 2015] topic banned from acupuncture
• November 17, 2015 warned by ArbCom about e-cigs
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=716112025&oldid=715647098 April 19, 2016] topic banned from Vani Hari and the talk page for 3 months
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=796830504#User:QuackGuru_and_Judeo-Christian_related_articles August 23, 2017] topic banned from {{tqq| all articles and edits related to religion, broadly construed}} by the community

For a case with 14 parties ultimately we're here because of Doc James' insistence that pricing belongs in the articles of hundreds of drugs. On its own this isn’t a problem. What is a problem is that he has taken what can, in the reading most sympathetic to his point of view, be read as a lack of consensus from two different RfCs (2016 and 2020) and used that to justify his actions. I am also not aware of any incidents where Doc James respected a removal of the information. Every instance I am aware of, when information has been removed the removal has been reverted frequently but not always by Doc James. Plainly speaking over the years of this dispute the group of editors that have wanted to see this information included has been more aggressive in their stance than those who don't think it should be included (or at least not included as widely as it has been). This group is also larger numerically among the "regulars" of WikiProject Medicine than those who oppose its inclusion. This had, in my opinion, the effect of making those opposed to its inclusion more aggressive in discussion which has had its own negative side effects I'll discuss later.

Here is an extract of a comment I wrote in 2018 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=832945921&oldid=832945898] and it is sad to note that nothing has changed.

James has invited us on this page to comment on his writing style. He includes Rotavirus vaccine on a list of articles he has "improved". I started this article and many of you will know that the virus is of special interest to me. The Lead of this article is a paradigm of James' excessive dumbing down. It consists of piecemeal factoids and has no flow. And here's a diff with typical fundamental grammatical error. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rotavirus_vaccine&diff=prev&oldid=920159926] (quote "the current versions is not").

In this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rotavirus_vaccine&diff=prev&oldid=693997557], James added the prices of rotavirus vaccines. These were incorrect. He wrote "The wholesale cost is between 6.96 and 20.66 USD as of 2014." But in 2014, the cost of the Rotavac vaccine course of three doses in India was Rs. 162 (about 2 USD). What was worse was James' addition changed the focus of the article to cost prices and numerous later additions by others to the article were of questionable neutrality in this regard. When one editor added that the costs were widely variable, James reverted with a dishonest edit summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rotavirus_vaccine&diff=prev&oldid=738055716]. The cost-benefit analysis of vaccine programs is complex to say the least. (See for example: {{cite journal |vauthors=Pecenka C, Debellut F, Bar-Zeev N, Anwari P, Nonvignon J, Shamsuzzaman M, Clark A |title=Re-evaluating the cost and cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination in Bangladesh, Ghana, and Malawi: A comparison of three rotavirus vaccines |journal=Vaccine |volume=36 |issue=49 |pages=7472–7478 |date=November 2018 |pmid=30420039 |pmc=6238205 |doi=10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.10.068 |url=}}). To add prices to this article (based on a source that is not WP:MEDRS compliant) was irresponsible.

By far Colin has been the toughest critic of my contributions to Wikipedia. As early as 2007, he made it clear to me that my prose was not up to FA standard. Here's a ruthless critique of an early draft of the lead of Virus [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Virus/Archive_1]. In 2008, he gave me a very tough time when reviewing a version of Rotavirus, where he commented on almost every single sentence.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rotavirus/Archive_2]. When I nominated an article on the history of viruses and virology at WP:FAC in 2010 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/History_of_viruses/archive1], Colin opposed outright. He criticised the very concept. I withdrew the nomination. In 2009, he gave another long thorough review of Phagocyte [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Phagocyte/Archive_2#Review_by_Colin]. What a grilling! Colin can come across as extremely annoying, but when I calmed down it became clear to me that he was often right. On the occasions when he wasn't, we managed to reach an understanding and move on. A tough critic indeed. Virus, Social history of viruses, Rotavirus and Phagocyte are now all Featured Articles. This would not have been the case without Colin's reviews. He taught me that it is simply not enough to know your subject and that there's loads more to producing quality content. I have never met Colin. We do exchange the occasional email, but often years pass when we don't. On reflection, the most rewarding times I have spent working here is when Colin was ruthlessly pushing me to do better.

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.

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.

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.

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.

As stated above, WMMED looked at evidence indicating that readers who don't have English as their first language often respond better to short video clips to summarise key medical information. At present, YouTube is the biggest publisher of such clips and it's a jungle, with fringe medicine and dangerous advice being afforded equal footing with evidence-based medicine. That lead to an attempt to source good quality short video clips that gave an overview of various conditions.

A commercial company called "Osmosis" produced about 300 video clips and released them in April 2017 under a CC-BY-SA licence suitable for Commons. They can be found at :c:Category:Videos from Osmosis. When some of these were used in Wikipedia articles, objections were raised in March 2018:

The issues identified with the Osmosis initiative led James to look for a collaboration that could deliver videos that could be created by Wikimedians from a script. The idea was that the script would be editable by anybody to update and add references. By July 2018 a working version of a tool was added to wmflabs and a documentation page created on Meta. The latest versions are at:

There is considerable friction between editors on the questions surrounding the inclusion of the pricing of drugs on Wikipedia. This extends to basic issues such as terminology, where some editors make a clear distinction between "price" (meaning a numerical value like "$0.25 per mg") and "pricing information" (meaning general prose descriptions like 'relatively inexpensive"); while other editors believe these terms to be completely interchangeable.

Wikipedia has a policy, often referred to as WP:NOTPRICE, which is part of part of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, that states:

To address some of the conflict surrounding drug pricing, an RfC was created by James in May 2016 to examine consensus for the inclusion of pricing in medical articles, and he gave examples of where prices could be found:

The breadth of interpretation of the 2016 RfC left detailed questions unresolved, in particular the issue of having drug prices in the lead of articles. The drafting process of the RfC was extensive and not all editors were happy with the wording. Eventually Whatamidoing created a draft, which was edited between 2 January 2020 and 23 January 2020 when Barkeep49 launched it as an active RfC. Links to details can be found at

Since the 2020 RfC closed, prices have been systematically removed from the lead of articles.

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.

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Stats the number of articles we collaborate on]. I have no means to measure the conflict:content ratio but my perception is it's low.

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.”[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Project_Med#Mission] 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.

The conflict is isolated to a few very niche areas of WP:MED. For instance, an edit and then the question, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASimvastatin&type=revision&diff=948233170&oldid=948233121 "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[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dementia_with_Lewy_bodies#Discussion].

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.

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)

I've found conversation on WT:MED getting heated way more frequently than other wikiprojects I've been involved in. This sometimes gets in the way of productive discussions, even when I think participants fundamentally agree. Writing FAs / improving lead readability / forming outside partnerships / video content / translation / offline content are presented as incompatible or competing in a way that sets up unconstructive friction and that I don't think is necessary (example discussion).

To the extent that this is also about content, I've already commented in the earlier RfC that I think that including pricing in medical articles (drugs and others) is notable in most cases. I really don't think inclusion of medical drug prices is advertising or promotion (often the opposite).

The collaboration with Osmosis was a good idea, since video content is an under-utilised potential for a non-paper encyclopedia (and something I've found readers often bring up). However, the main problem was lack of editability such that a video with a single error had to be excised in its entirety and in the end all were removed (I imagine a bit disappointing for he contributors). Granular and collaborative video editing via videowiki was a reasonable response to this. I've not seen it unfairly pushed on anyone who doesn't want to contribute.

Again, I think there are false dichotomies drawn between internal FA processes versus external quality assurance and academic outreach activities (Cochrane collab, journal publishing etc). Articles involved in these partnerships are not protected at a greater rate than others (as far as I can detect), and all participating partners are explicit that any content in Wikipedia is a) decided by the Wikipedia community and b) is expected to continually evolve.

Since Template:Academic_peer_reviewed was also brought up here, I just want to add a couple of notes about it.

I've been trying to figure out what the locus of this case is, and I don't think I've entirely figured it out. However, I think this might be useful for people to know:

It would be a mistake to classify most WikiProject Medicine editors as being wholly pro-prices or anti-prices. Most editors do not hold extreme views in either direction and support the inclusion of some price information without supporting the inclusion of some other price information.

While writing the RFC question, there were several frustrating moments. One is easily illustrated by this timeline:

To expand upon Barkeep49's #Timeline of MOS Dispute, I add:

Important context: There were (and still are) some factual errors in our articles. Consider the corrections of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethosuximide&diff=935077399&oldid=929168234 this arithmetic error] and this claim [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethosuximide&diff=949320069&oldid=948256064 misrepresenting a single supplier's list price for a single country as "the" cost in the entire developing world] in Ethosuximide, or this discussion about whether the source said 12¢ vs 15¢.

Several editors have commented on affiliations, so in addition to saying that Doc James is a corporate officer for m:WPMEDF, he is also on the m:Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, and that I am a part-time contractor for the Wikimedia Foundation. None of this has anything to do with any of that, of course.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices concluded that citing MSH's IMPPG database to support a claim about how a drug's price violates WP:NOR.

I see that Hipal/Ronz has added information regarding the iPhone 11 article to their evidence section. I want to expand on this a bit more since I participated in the RfC and saw several other problems that others have mentioned in their evidence that also pertain to this non-medicine-related RfC.

As seen from the evidence and diffs above, problems that I'd noticed:

From Wikipedia:Advocacy:

• Doc James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic&diff=949303953&oldid=949303782&diffmode=source adds a video] that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VideoWiki/Coronavirus_disease_2019&oldid=949115515 he created] to the lead of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic‎‎ article
• Matthiaspaul [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic&diff=949485103&oldid=949479411&diffmode=source1 removes it]: Removed video from lede. This gets displayed as a big distracting empty box with scripting disabled, and we certainly don't need a video here.
• Doc James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic&diff=949496401&oldid=949493777&diffmode=source re-adds the video]
• Doc James [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic&diff=949496534&oldid=949496300&diffmode=source starts a discussion] after he re-added the video back in; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic/Archive_28#Video link to full talk page discussion]
• Ozzie10aaaa joins in an hour later [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic&diff=949503968&oldid=949503082 and supports Doc James]
• Matthiaspaul [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic&diff=949695480&oldid=949693226 responds and fully explains the reason for the removal]:

I began editing Wikipedia in 2008. Early in my editing time, I worked on schizophrenia and some related pages, but I switched fairly soon to focusing most of my science-related editing on basic neuroscience, pharmacology, and physiology, rather than on medical content. In the spring of 2018, however, I came to observe a significant instance of the conflicts in the case area: about Doc James' addition of medical videos to multiple pages. The history of the conflict goes back quite a few years before that, but this is a time period of which I can speak from personal observation.

March 26: Colin opens discussions in which he expresses concern about the videos, at WT:MED: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=834512636#Osmosis_concerns], and at Jimmy Wales' talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=834094806#Osmosis:_Wikipedia_medical_articles_hijacked_by_paid_editors_working_for_private_foundation]. I did not participate in either of those discussions, but most of the named parties in the case feature prominently there.

In the last days of drafting the RfC, Barkeep49 urged editors doing the drafting to be attentive to the need for the RfC to be neutrally worded: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style%2FMedicine-related_articles&type=revision&diff=936785007&oldid=936772449], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style%2FMedicine-related_articles&type=revision&diff=937099148&oldid=937096966]. Rosguill served as am uninvolved administrator to evaluate the draft for neutrality, and identified some potential problems: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style%2FMedicine-related_articles&type=revision&diff=936886168&oldid=936883204]. Ronz/Hipal made some helpful edits to try to address those concerns: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style%2FMedicine-related_articles&type=revision&diff=937100781&oldid=937099602]. The overall discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/Archive 12#Polishing the draft, and is rather sprawling, but I get the impression that, outside of Ronz/Hipal's editing, there was a lot of resistance to going along with Rosguill's recommendations.

Some broad points:

The core of the problem is that both Colin and Doc James care deeply about the content our readers are getting but they are coming at it from different angles and great conflict in the past has arisen.

I don’t really care much about the drug pricing dispute before this ArbCom and having familiarised myself with it now I still don’t care much about it. So I never involved myself in it. I can see arguments both for and against including pricing information. In any event this dispute has attracted much (largely avoidable) drama.

Colin is a good editor, he is intelligent and for many years he edited the project peacefully and productively. I do not think that he should be site banned or blocked but rather some measure should be in place that compels him back to his productive behaviour, like a 12 month interaction ban to allow a cooling off of heads? Believe it or not I actually like Colin as an editor, and am grateful for his contributions, but I do not like the problematic behaviour from Colin, particularly that which occurred between 2 and 3 years ago. I can understand though how editing disputes can escalate and how stress levels can increase as I have myself have lost my cool during editing disputes. Indeed, due to the positive contributions of Colin, his net positive, I opposed, on ANI, a topic ban on Colin and instead supported a drug pricing RfC instead which I felt would be more positive; I also felt a follow up RfC to that RfC, by way of clarifying certain issues of dispute, would have been better than an ArbCom in the middle of a pandemic, but anyway.

I deeply regret any incivility or rudeness on my part. With limited time to compile this testimony, I do not aim to be comprehensive. I have found this ArbCom filing very difficult as I have made considerable efforts to avoid engaging in the issue, yet have been unsuccessful. This is in part because of how widespread it has become, and in part my own failing to focus on what matters.

To RexxS’s characterization of an experimentalist—conventionalist divide, I add the dimension of a generalist—specialist divide. One group of editors represents prolific WP:FA-editors, with an intense focus on improving one or a few articles at a time, the other group tends to edit many articles, improving little by little. My personal understanding is that both editing styles are acceptable.

I endorse evidence presented by RexxS, Ian Furst, FeydHuxtable, Evolution and Evolvability, and Literaturegeek’s deleted evidence{{diff2|953052601}} (which if not restored, I hereby formally request be added to my evidence).

This is just one of many examples, but one that is especially illuminating of use of WP:NOTVOTE as a strategy.

There are issues besides these, however they are covered better by others.

Prostate cancer

;Drug RfC

;Incivility

SandyGeorgia presents evidence against me.

What strikes me about this is that most parties actually get on with each other for significant segments of time, and what needs to be looked at is subtler ways of influencing the consensus process such as filibustering, wikilawyering etc. This should take place in the workshop. Sorry - time is limited and I only realise I am obliquely/distantly involved in this.

Doc James has an admirable view of getting the information out to as many people as possible worldwide in a format they can understand. However, we have differences at times in that I feel that accuracy is sacrificed - I saw this with the videos and at times with wording in some medical articles. I will try to add some before evidence phase closes (placeholder)

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.

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.