Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Morgellons

Mediation Case: 2007-03-96 Morgellons
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Dyanega 22:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?

Morgellons - a page already flagged as under dispute


 * Who's involved?

as per my note and discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism, there appears to be someone in Germany, probably a scientsist at the European Southern Observatory, who has initiated an edit war using anonymous sock puppets (multiple IPs, mostly 80.140.xxx.xxx, and possibly again at 80.135.102.52). For the most part, the other party is myself, though others have undone his/her edits, as well.

RECENT ADDITION: A newer editor, Mukrkrgsj, in a series of comments added to the article's talk page starting on March 22, 2007, has made increasingly personal and accusatory remarks declaring that my editing of the article involved the deliberate introduction of personal bias on my part.


 * What's going on?

The former anonymous person has, for several weeks now, been constantly editing the introduction of the Morgellons page in such a way as to imply that the condition is real, and accepted as such. You can see in the history of their edits (from multiple IP addresses, originating either from the ESO HQ in Garching or from a nearby IP in Nuernberg) the systematic and deliberate removal of objective and/or attributable statements and rephrasing into POV versions in support of the recognition of Morgellons as a real disease - which is something the medical community has NOT yet accepted, and has quite vocally rejected, in fact, as of this date. I think that the Morgellons page is actually extremely important and timely - there are tens of thousands of people who, upon hearing about the "disease", immediately diagnosed themselves as having it, and are now clamoring for recognition of their claim to true (and NOVEL) physical illness - when all available evidence is that it is a catch-all for a number of known diseases, most commonly psychological. These people will never get the proper treatment if they are permitted to indulge the fantasy that they have some mysterious unknown ailment that science is baffled by. There needs to be at least ONE online resource that states the facts, plain and simple, and WP needs to be that sort of place. It is fine to admit that the "jury is out" in this case, pending a formal CDC report, but NOT to deny that there is no evidence on the pro-Morgellons side (other than that manufactured by the Morgellons Research Foundation), or to inform readers that so far no genuine medical experts have come forward to do anything besides denounce this as a non-disease. These are the facts, and there is no reason the WP article should be unable to state them, simply because this one editor objects.

The more recent editor has recently suggested altering the introduction of the article to remove sourced quotations, and to include the implication that the University of California is promoting that Morgellons patients should be given medication. This is false, irresponsible, and does not appear at all to be editing in good faith.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?

If it's only me telling the anonymous editor that this type of editing is inappropriate, he seems to ignore it, and I have limited patience with those who will not listen to reason - perhaps a few more voices and a stern warning or two might have an effect, though I rather suspect otherwise. It is likely that the editor in question himself/herself suffers from delusional parasitosis and, as such, has an immense vested psychological interest in maintaining that Morgellons is a real disease, because the alternative is that he suffers from a psychosis - and obviously very few people will ever willingly admit such a thing about themselves. A person in such a profound state of denial is a very dangerous thing to have editing a page that refers to the very condition they suffer from. Of course, they are never going to admit that they suffer from the condition, nor make their true identity known, so I anticipate that this editor may potentially be here for a long time, and I don't want to enter into an edit war, nor try to maintain the peace myself, nor shut the page down. SOME sort of intervention and backup is likely to be necessary, if my fears about this editor prove true. I suspect this editor is a veritable time bomb, and would like to see him defused rather than exploding. The latest edit originating from this editor's ISP is linked to Chemtrail theory, which suggests another explanation for their refusal to accept statements by medical professionals, but this is also a bit outside of rational discourse. Regardless of their motives, their actions in editing are hardly supportable, in my view, and while I do recognize that a biased editor is always capable of making unbiased edits, I do not believe that to be the case here.

The more recent editor seems at least willing to entertain a limited dialogue, but does not - to me - appear to acknowledge what a truly neutral POV is. If the article can be summarized as "The medical community believes X, public health officials believe X, and those who have the condition believe Y, as do the people who named the condition" then that is a neutral summary, and is how I had edited it, with quotations to back it all up. A third-party mediation can hopefully serve to set things straight - whether I am the one who is mistaken, or they are. However, the tone of the suggested revised introduction, and the tone of the personal attacks, strikes me as a tone of personal resentment, rather than objective disagreement. If this editor considers statements that the medical community believes Morgellons is a mental illness to be personally offensive, then they are not likely to agree about what is or is not objective. I have no personal or professional stake in the matter; ultimately, my fundamental concern is that edits that I have been making in good faith are being undone, in ways and for reasons that are at odds with the goals and policies of WP.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

As for the anonymous editor, I defer to the opinions and sensibility of those who have experience in such matters (and I will set THIS page on my watchlist); I'm sure that there are many such intelligent but psychologically-driven editors out there, trying to change a great many pages to reflect their own private phobias and neuroses, and undermining the efforts of others to legitimately inform the public rather than sensationalizing things needlessly, or pandering to the gullible. I have encountered similar problems when dealing with pages that mention urban legends or cryptids - someone who adamantly refuses to abandon their belief in something which is patently and demonstrably untrue, and insists that allowing a WP article to state "all available evidence indicates that X is NOT true" is somehow a violation of NPOV.

In the latter case, I am more hopeful that an appeal to reason will be sufficient to defuse the issue.

Mediator response
Case adopted. Vassyana 12:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion time allowed. Archived discussion. Posed questions to participants to move forward. Vassyana 08:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Acceptance
Please indicate if you accept my assistance as mediator: Accept - I accept Dyanega 22:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Reject

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.



Discussion
Initial debate, archived.

Questions
OK I think we have a good idea of people's positions on the general issue, which is good. I want to ask a few questions about things. This way I can get a better idea of some things and we can try to work forward towards a compromise. Please answer all the questions with the assumption of good faith on the other side and address the content not the other editors. Please keep all answers short. Vassyana 08:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please answer below.
 * 1) What do you see as the biggest inaccuracy in the current article?
 * 2) What do you think is most lacking from the current article?
 * 3) What do you believe needs to be presented most in the article?
 * 4) Is the article prone to point of view flaws? If so, what are they?

Question 1: Article inaccuracy
Mukrkrgsj

Some of the major inaccuracies in the article are that it does not correctly describe the medical condition known as Morgellons; claims it does not exist; equates it with "delusional parasitosis"; claims it is a neurosis or psychosis, which should be treated with antipsychotic medications; and suggests that the MRF is corrupt.

Dyanega

The article quite plainly does NOT state that Morgellons does not exist. It states that the medical and scientific communities have concluded that (1) Morgellons does not exist (with citations), and (2) that it represents many different known ailments, of which delusional parasitosis is the most prominent (also with citations). It does NOT say that it SHOULD be treated with antipsychotic medications - what it says is that it HAS been treated, succesfully, with antipsychotic medications, and gives a citation. It does not suggest that the MRF is corrupt, it points out that the MRF has a conflict of interest. That is the difference between an encyclopedia and an opinion page; a rather large distinction, which seems to be missed here.

Further, how does one "correctly describe the medical condition known as Morgellons" when the medical community does not accept the condition, nor recognize a formal diagnosis? The answer is that one presents the description given by the patients themselves, which is indeed what the article does.

Question 2: Article shortcomings
Mukrkrgsj

The article lacks honesty, objectivity, and fairness. In terms of the facts, it lacks accurate and unbiased descriptions of the condition itself, and the MRF.

Dyanega

Obviously, I disagree with this assessment. I do not believe that Mukrkrgsj understands what WP:COI and WP:SPS actually mean, nor understands that ANY description of Morgellons that comes from the MRF or one of its sponsored researchers is in violation of both policies. Further, the article DOES in fact include the verbatim description of the condition itself as given by the MRF! It is not an unbiased description (nor is the aforementioned listing of self-reported symptoms given by Morgellons sufferers), and yet I have not removed it, though WP policy would support such a thing, primarily so that editors would NOT be able to accuse the article of unfairness, as Mukrkrgsj is doing.

Question 3: Article presentation
Mukrkrgsj

All this article needs to do, is accurately and objectively describe the medical condition; explain that the MRF is a research and support group for those who have it, or think they might; acknowledge that some dermatologists and entomologists think it's psychosomatic; and note that the CDC may study it this year.

Dyanega

Unless we are reading different articles entirely, I see all of those points already covered in the article. Further, it is not "some" dermatologists - it is EVERY dermatologist who has published a paper on Morgellons in the last 10 years, and they have not stated that ALL cases of Morgellons are psychosomatic illnesses (in some cases, it is allergies, or scabies, or lice, etc.). I have said it before, and I will reiterate: if you can find a published citation from an independent dermatologist (not affiliated with the MRF or another Morgellons organization) that supports the recognition of Morgellons as a distinct ailment, then you are welcome to include the citation in the article, and I promise I will not remove it. If the article appears unbalanced to you, it is because the only reliable sources (in WP's sense of the term) are on one side of the debate. It is NOT the job of an editor to try to enforce an artificial balance by either fabricating support where none exists, or by sabotaging the case that exists for the side that DOES have support (as in your suggested amendment to the introduction, where you proposed to eliminate all of the sourced quotations from medical professionals). Trimming the article down to virtually nothing, as apparently proposed, would be a major step backwards, and a disservice to all the readers, especially those who might believe themselves to be suffering from this condition. When all the cards are laid on the table, then - yes - one side will normally have a visibly stronger hand; I do not agree that the best approach is to conceal the cards, so I opt for full disclosure.

Question 4: Point of view
Mukrkrgsj

As I noted under Question 1, the current article claims Morgellons does not exist, equates it with "delusional parasitosis", claims those who have it are neurotic or psychotic, and suggests the MRF is corrupt. The article is poorly written and incoherent, but it clearly expresses and endorses a single point of view: that of those dermatologists and entomologists who think the condition is psychosomatic.

Dyanega

This assessment is plainly, visibly wrong, as noted under Question 1. This editor's point of view seems to be that the opinions of the medical and scientific community are unacceptable and unreliable, and that the only people with an unbiased view of the condition are those who suffer from it or profit from it. I see very little difference between the arguments presented here from those in the debate over the Church of Scientology article and its associated articles; the CoS proposes (among other things) that people are suffering because of body thetans, and that the Church is doing research and has treatments that can eliminate this suffering, by soliciting money as a non-profit organization. The same organization that has unilaterally defined the ailment (body thetans) has also stated that they hold the cure for it (Scientology), despite strong disagreement from the medical and scientific communites. The conflict of interest in this case is rather obvious, and is not concealed from readers. The articles discussing this topic are therefore constant sources of contention, but the editors have WP maintain these articles well, and objectively - NOWHERE do these articles state that the CoS or its teachings are fraudulent, though it may certainly be easy for readers to draw that conclusion on their own. The Morgellons Research Foundation has also unilaterally defined an ailment, and claims to be doing research to help eliminate this suffering, by soliciting money as a non-profit organization, despite strong disagreement from the medical and scientific communites. This is also an obvious conflict of interest, and should not be concealed from the readers. The same stringent editorial policies apply to Morgellons as apply to Scientology or any other such case where one side of a debate is profiting from the promotion of their cause.

As a final note, I did not write the article; I am an editor, and I am striving to keep the article objective. I do not believe Mukrkrgsj understands or appreciates what that means. Dyanega 21:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)