Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-02 Tourette Syndrome

Request Information

 * Request made by: Sandy 19:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Tourette Syndrome initially, now also on its talk page.

Since the issue began in early Feb, there have been only two active editors on the page, myself and an UnsignedUser, with 6 IP addresses that trace to the same source. ( 206.59.63.52 ; 206.59.60.129 ; 206.59.61.133 ; 206.59.60.140 ; 206.59.61.72 ; 206.59.61.241 )  One other editor (Greg Kuperberg, who has a long history of contributions to the article) offered an opinion on 4 Feb, concurring with mine, but has not revisited the page since he was personally attacked by UnsignedUser.
 * Who's involved?

Most of it is summarized in the Marinol - Move Pot sections on the talk page, although you can see issues that have come up in other sections, where I have encouraged UnsignedUser to use talk pages, to sign his entries, to reach consensus, to not alter the talk page, etc.
 * What's going on?

Several things are occurring, involving understanding what Wikipedia is and is not, the principles and pillars, reliable sources, copyright, vanity entries, collections of links, consensus, etc. Ad hominem and personal attacks seem to have subsided.

UnsignedUser doesn't have an account or use his talk page, or mine, although I've invited him many times. He is beginning to sometimes sign his talk page entries and include edit summaries, so there has been progress. My sense is that he is emotionally involved in the marijuana/Marinol issue, but does not intend bad faith.

The Marinol entry, in spite of great improvement, remains a soapbox issue and has little encyclopedic relevance. This is summarized on the Talk Page in the Marinol, Move Pot Elsewhere sections.

The talk page also now needs a cleanup and archive. UnsignedUser edits in random places, without signature, so the entries become unintelligible and lose chronological sense. UnsignedUser was also asking to delete portions of the talk page, changing entries after they were responded to, moving entries disruptively, inserting comments that broke off previous entires, so that the talk page lacks congruence. He is trying, but needs to understand how Wiki works.

UnsignedUser has added five separate sections to the talk page, titled Consensus, all covering the same thing, even though the minimal consensus which exists (two editors) is to reduce the Marinol entry. He seems to want no one to ever change his Marinol entry, although I've explained to him that isn't how Wikipedia works. I've left the Marinol entry alone, pending guidance -- see talk page here.

There are no other experienced editors involved to provide guidance, and UnsignedUser hasn't responded to my requests to talk about these sorts of things on personal talk pages.

Talk page.
 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * Orientation about Wikipedia, principles and pillars, encyclopedic tone.
 * Clean up five repeated articles on talk page and archive earlier sections.
 * Help deal with marijuana/Marinol tangent in the article. (See Marinol Move Pot sections in Talk page)
 * Provide guidance regarding ongoing problem with vanity entries (websites, famous people, people mentioned in books, etc.) or entries of little import.
 * Although I know it's not required, it would help if Unsigned would start an account, since he appears to want to be active in the entry.
 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Sorry I didn't sign earlier update -- I think I have a cookie problem, and keep getting logged out automatically without realizing. Sandy 01:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others
Please also read the "A Brand New Concensus Has Been Reached" section on the talk page because I was making a compromise there on a consensus statement that is not found in the other sections on concensus. Nobody bothered to respond with a good reason to disagree with the new concensus statement. I actually wanted a response, so perhaps I repeating a few things. I think I am entitled to a response on the NEW CONSENSUS, which was not the same as the old concensus statement! All the new concensus statement says is that their is no good reason to move the information on Marinol and TS to the Marinol article. I never said that the Marinol paragraph should "not change" but because Sandy had some objections when I said that paragraph should remain "roughly" the same or that "no drastic changes are needed " I dropped that clause altogheter in the new consensus statement! Neither Sandy nor anybody else has provided a REASON to disagree with the new concensus statement! Just saying "I disagree" is not enough! It seems to me that wiki policy requires that you provide a good reason to disagree with something and to explain your reasoning. I have been asking Sandy (or anybody else) to give me a good reason to move the Marinol paragraph to the Marinol article. For Sandy to claim that I'm emotional about Marinol/marijuana, but I not because of bad faith is insulting! She is claiming that I do have a pro-"Marinol/marijuana" agenda, but not out of bad faith! Then I must just be stupid, right? This is almost as insulting as when Greg claimed that I have a "pro-pot" agenda not out of bad faith but due to "human fraility!" I have been personally insulted many times myself, and these people are hypocrites!

Sandy is hypocritical when she gets on her soapbox about how I'm violating wiki rules! She edited some things I wrote on the talk page and moved it out of context. She also tried to simply erase the entire section on Marinol, until a sysop reverted the page back!

Sandy is still talking about "Marinol/marijuana" as if they are the same thing! Marinol is not the same thing as marijuana! I don't understand why she still can't understand the difference! As point #2 below points out, this paragraph could actually be used as an arguement AGAINST medical marijuana. No matter where you stand on drug policy, if you are the DEA administrator or if you are Timothy Leary, you would agree that Marinol should be legal for medical use! That is why it is legal for medical use in all 50 states and under federal law. The DEA recently made Marinol less controlled, lowering it from Schedule II to Schedule III. Research on Marinol is NOT THE SAME as research on marijuana! I don't understand why people keep getting this confused! I will cut and paste my four reasons for not moving the paragraph to the Marinol article here.

The information on Marinol is not a tangent, and should not be moved to the Marinol article because:


 * 1. There is just one paragraph on Marinol in this article. It is in the "experimental treatsments" section. It is made clear that the research is only preliminary.


 * 2. In spite of the fact that Greg accused me (or at least somebody who posted to this article) of getting into the "politics of illegal drugs" and being pro "medical-marijuana" when it comes to Marinol (legal by Rx in all 50 states) Greg is wrong! In fact, this could actually be an arguement AGAINST medical marijuana, because it appears that the legal alternative (Marinol) is supperor to marijuana for treating TS! Greg should assume good faith, and learn that marijuana and Marinol are not the same thing.


 * 3. The Marinol article just has information on what Marinol is and what it has been approved for. It has been used experimentally in treating all sorts of things, and therefore there is no laundry list of all Marinol research for all conditions in the Marinol article. That sort of information belongs in the articles about specific conditions.


 * 4. Many medications' names have been posted to this article, and many of these medications have their own articles in wikipedia that don't mention Tourette's Syndrome at all! So the standard precident, in this very article and on wikipedia, is: Information about off the label research on a drug for treating a specific condition belongs in the article about the specific condition, not the article about the drug!

Recently some people have been editing the experimental treatment section so that all the other treatments have only one or two sentences about them and put them all into one paragraph. This causes the Marinol paragraph to look large in comparison. Just a few days ago, this was not the case! There used to be a lot more information in the experimental treatment section! For example, a few days ago there was an entire paragraph on nicotine! I do believe that some experimental treatments deserve more than one sentence in the article, and that the first paragraph in that section is too breif. Perhaps the answer is to make the section as long as it was just a few days ago when it did not have the appearance of spending too much time on Marinol!

206.59.61.72 18:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I just reduced the Marinol paragraph to four sentences. I still think that the first paragraph in the experimental treatments section is too brief. Incidently, my IP address is out of my control. That is just how my ISP works.206.59.61.72 21:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediator response
Before we continue with this mediation I would like to inform both participants that I am an active "illegal" drug user and advocate of complete maijuana re-legalisation. If they feel that this impairs my judgement or damages my impartiality on the subject then please feel free to request another mediator. I will await your responses before I continue this mediation. A simple "no problem, lets get on" will suffice, or alternatively a "no problem, we'll find someone else". - FrancisTyers 21:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the disclaimer, Francis. I don't know if it will be a problem or not -- should we discuss it further on the talk page?  I see the real problem here as the approach to the issue (vis-a-vis Wikipedia policies and pillars), rather than the issue itself, so I'm not sure that's an automatic disqualifer. I'd like to explore further, if that's an option. Sandy 22:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with it, because I personally don't know of anybody who is opposed to legalizing Marinol for medicinal use! There is a consensus of opinion on that issue!  I'm not sure what Sandy means when she says she wants to talk about further on the talk page.  Perhaps she can be more specific.206.59.61.72 22:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * According to a Time/CNN poll 80% of Americans support making marijuana legal for medical use.  I don't think someone should be disqualified just because they agree with four out of five Americans.206.59.61.72 22:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, seeing as you both agree I shall continue. If at any point you doubt my impartiality you can make a note here or contact me by email. - FrancisTyers 22:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I asked if we could talk further about it :-) Rather than e-mail you, I will spell out my questions on the talk page.  Sandy 22:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Final words
Case closed, requester councilled to contact me if any further issues arise. - FrancisTyers 15:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)