Foundation board member James Heilman is forking Wikipedia

[AngelOne]

It also calls into question his commitment to Wikipedia, because he's walking away from the community. If he's not committed, or even part of the community, can he really fully be the voice of the community on the Board?

This is the part that resonates with me.

As I say, nobody seemed concerned about Fred Bauder running his own wiki. However, no doubt its impact on ENWP was insignificant,

Bauder wasn't a Trustee of the Board, hadn't received significant media coverage, and hadn't been a community member for nearly as long as James had.

[Eric Corbett]

It also calls into question his commitment to Wikipedia, because he's walking away from the community. If he's not committed, or even part of the community, can he really fully be the voice of the community on the Board?

This is the part that resonates with me.

As I say, nobody seemed concerned about Fred Bauder running his own wiki. However, no doubt its impact on ENWP was insignificant,

Bauder wasn't a Trustee of the Board, hadn't received significant media coverage, and hadn't been a community member for nearly as long as James had.

Wikipedia in its current form clearly doesn't have much of a future. You need to get used to the idea of the myth of "all human knowledge" being replaced by the reality of "forking". The WMF has clearly recognised that.

[Poetlister]

Increasingly, people scarcely realise that Wikipedia is there. They use Google or Bing to look up a query, see the fact that they want and look no further. More often than not, the fact will come from Wikipedia, but they don't actually visit the site.

[Casliber]

Can anyone identify a fork that has been successful to date?

[Eric Corbett]

Can anyone identify a fork that has been successful to date?

How would you define "success"?

[Poetlister]

Can anyone identify a fork that has been successful to date?

How would you define "success"?

I'd say one that has been going for at least a year and still has a reasonable number of active editors and edits. As a low bar, say five editors and five edits a day? The best-known forks are probably Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español (in Spanish of course) and the New World Encyclopedia.

[Eric Corbett]

Can anyone identify a fork that has been successful to date?

How would you define "success"?

I'd say one that has been going for at least a year and still has a reasonable number of active editors and edits. As a low bar, say five editors and five edits a day? The best-known forks are probably Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español (in Spanish of course) and the New World Encyclopedia.

I'm wondering in particular if a fork has itself to be a wiki, or use the WikiMedia software, to be considered.

[Poetlister]

I'm wondering in particular if a fork has itself to be a wiki, or use the WikiMedia software, to be considered.

Presumably it has to have editing facilities, otherwise it is a static mirror and not a fork. A wiki is the easiest way to achieve that, but I wouldn't say it was essential.

[Eric Corbett]

I'm wondering in particular if a fork has itself to be a wiki, or use the WikiMedia software, to be considered.

Presumably it has to have editing facilities, otherwise it is a static mirror and not a fork. A wiki is the easiest way to achieve that, but I wouldn't say it was essential.

Every web site can be edited, obviously, but presumably you mean in the sense of a content management system? Mostly though they're only editable by those who are known to be trusted. Wikis are of course different, in that they're editable by any random plank.

So presumably you mean that a successful fork must be editable by any random plank?

[AndyTheGrump]

Wikis are of course different, in that they're editable by any random plank.

There is nothing inherent in a Wiki that enforces it being editable (or even accessible) by 'any random plank'.

Intellipedia (T-H-L)

[Eric Corbett]

Wikis are of course different, in that they're editable by any random plank.

There is nothing inherent in a Wiki that enforces it being editable (or even accessible) by 'any random plank'.

Intellipedia (T-H-L)

Perhaps.

Maybe you can then explain why Wikipedia is editable by random planks, or what a wiki really is, and how it's any different from a CMS.

[Poetlister]

I mean that it is easy to allow any given person to edit articles. Wikipedia is of course committed to "anyone can edit", but most wikis in my experience require registration, usually with a verifiable e-mail or even only by request to the admins (as happens on this board of course). And there is no difficulty having pending changes. So no, a wiki does not need to be editable by 'any random plank'. I suppose that a set of Google docs could be used instead, though wikis have some advantages over that.

[Eric Corbett]

I mean that it is easy to allow any given person to edit articles.

So it's just another CMS then, the "wiki" bit is of historical interest only.

[Eric Corbett]

Thanks for splitting these posts out into their own thread.

The situation is now being discussed on Iridescent (T-C-L)'s Talk page here. The discussion is mainly focused on copyright because Doc James' new site doesn't properly attribute the copies. Not really a surprise, as he's not known for his attention to detail. Quick, sweeping decisions and stubbornly defending them, yes. Making sure that all the ts are crossed and is dotted, no.

If he won't even follow the legal rules and could be sued for that, he's not fit to be on the Board.

Are the rules "legal"? Have they been tested in court? Do they really matter?

I find the whole idea of attributing articles to anonymous editors using pseudonyms such as Rotation4020, Meteor Sandwich yum, MinorProphet and the like to be ridiculous. If they want attribution, let them use their real names. It's quite possible that they're all the same person anyway.

[Zoloft]

Thanks for splitting these posts out into their own thread.

The situation is now being discussed on Iridescent (T-C-L)'s Talk page here. The discussion is mainly focused on copyright because Doc James' new site doesn't properly attribute the copies. Not really a surprise, as he's not known for his attention to detail. Quick, sweeping decisions and stubbornly defending them, yes. Making sure that all the ts are crossed and is dotted, no.

If he won't even follow the legal rules and could be sued for that, he's not fit to be on the Board.

Are the rules "legal"? Have they been tested in court? Do they really matter?

I find the whole idea of attributing articles to anonymous editors using pseudonyms such as Rotation4020, Meteor Sandwich yum, MinorProphet and the like to be ridiculous. If they want attribution, let them use their real names. It's quite possible that they're all the same person anyway.

There are examples of the CC-BY-SA attribution tested in court. Here's the one I enjoyed the most:

Judgment in a Rabbinical Tribunal

[Poetlister]

I find the whole idea of attributing articles to anonymous editors using pseudonyms such as Rotation4020, Meteor Sandwich yum, MinorProphet and the like to be ridiculous. If they want attribution, let them use their real names. It's quite possible that they're all the same person anyway.

There are examples of the CC-BY-SA attribution tested in court. Here's the one I enjoyed the most:

Judgment in a Rabbinical Tribunal

Of course, an anonymous person would find it hard to go to court. He/she would have to prove the identification with the pseudonym. But there is no shortage of people publishing books under pseudonymous names and asserting full copyright, not just CC credit.

[Eric Corbett]

Thanks for splitting these posts out into their own thread.

The situation is now being discussed on Iridescent (T-C-L)'s Talk page here. The discussion is mainly focused on copyright because Doc James' new site doesn't properly attribute the copies. Not really a surprise, as he's not known for his attention to detail. Quick, sweeping decisions and stubbornly defending them, yes. Making sure that all the ts are crossed and is dotted, no.

If he won't even follow the legal rules and could be sued for that, he's not fit to be on the Board.

Are the rules "legal"? Have they been tested in court? Do they really matter?

I find the whole idea of attributing articles to anonymous editors using pseudonyms such as Rotation4020, Meteor Sandwich yum, MinorProphet and the like to be ridiculous. If they want attribution, let them use their real names. It's quite possible that they're all the same person anyway.

There are examples of the CC-BY-SA attribution tested in court. Here's the one I enjoyed the most:

Judgment in a Rabbinical Tribunal

Not quite the same thing. What constitutes "proper attribution", especially when there's no gain or loss to either party?

[Zoloft]

Thanks for splitting these posts out into their own thread.

The situation is now being discussed on Iridescent (T-C-L)'s Talk page here. The discussion is mainly focused on copyright because Doc James' new site doesn't properly attribute the copies. Not really a surprise, as he's not known for his attention to detail. Quick, sweeping decisions and stubbornly defending them, yes. Making sure that all the ts are crossed and is dotted, no.

If he won't even follow the legal rules and could be sued for that, he's not fit to be on the Board.

Are the rules "legal"? Have they been tested in court? Do they really matter?

I find the whole idea of attributing articles to anonymous editors using pseudonyms such as Rotation4020, Meteor Sandwich yum, MinorProphet and the like to be ridiculous. If they want attribution, let them use their real names. It's quite possible that they're all the same person anyway.

There are examples of the CC-BY-SA attribution tested in court. Here's the one I enjoyed the most:

Judgment in a Rabbinical Tribunal

Not quite the same thing. What constitutes "proper attribution", especially when there's no gain or loss to either party?

Hey, you worked under CC-BY-SA for years, and thousands of your entries fall under it. Don't you want them attributed to you if used elsewhere?

[Eric Corbett]

Thanks for splitting these posts out into their own thread.

The situation is now being discussed on Iridescent (T-C-L)'s Talk page here. The discussion is mainly focused on copyright because Doc James' new site doesn't properly attribute the copies. Not really a surprise, as he's not known for his attention to detail. Quick, sweeping decisions and stubbornly defending them, yes. Making sure that all the ts are crossed and is dotted, no.

If he won't even follow the legal rules and could be sued for that, he's not fit to be on the Board.

Are the rules "legal"? Have they been tested in court? Do they really matter?

I find the whole idea of attributing articles to anonymous editors using pseudonyms such as Rotation4020, Meteor Sandwich yum, MinorProphet and the like to be ridiculous. If they want attribution, let them use their real names. It's quite possible that they're all the same person anyway.

There are examples of the CC-BY-SA attribution tested in court. Here's the one I enjoyed the most:

Judgment in a Rabbinical Tribunal

Not quite the same thing. What constitutes "proper attribution", especially when there's no gain or loss to either party?

Hey, you worked under CC-BY-SA for years, and thousands of your entries fall under it. Don't you want them attributed to you if used elsewhere?

No.

I didn't write them for personal glory. Others may, but I couldn't care less.

[Vigilant]

I didn't write them for personal glory. Others may, but I couldn't care less.

Pull the other one, it has bells on it

[Midsize Jake]

I didn't write them for personal glory. Others may, but I couldn't care less.

Pull the other one, it has bells on it

To be fair, he probably means public recognition in this context, and there are other ways to achieve self-satisfaction/self-affirmation than just obtaining public recognition. In addition, one's behavior isn't always linked to one's motivations, and while we've often criticized Eric here for his behavior, at least he's been fairly consistent (as I recall) when discussing his motivations. In other words, he's always shown little or no inclination to admire himself and his WP writing, preferring instead to bash other people for not meeting his standards — which is then often interpreted by others as misbehavior. (In some cases justifiably, depending on his word choices.)

I say this not to criticize him though, since if I were a Wikipedian I'd probably do the same sort of things and end up pretty much the same way. I'd be more polite about it of course, at least for a while, but who knows how long I'd be able to keep that up.

Anyway, this is getting off-topic, etc., etc. (Unless we want to further pursue the question of Dr. Heilman's own motivations for doing what he's currently doing, and how they might cause him to not want to provide attributions on "forked" articles.)

[el84]

To return to the topic on hand, every time I read the thread title, I think it says that James is "fucking" Wikipedia rather than forking it.

[Eric Corbett]

To return to the topic on hand, every time I read the thread title, I think it says that James is "fucking" Wikipedia rather than forking it.

Perhaps he's doing both?

[Randy from Boise]

To return to the topic on hand, every time I read the thread title, I think it says that James is "fucking" Wikipedia rather than forking it.

Perhaps he's doing both?

I think the term is scissoring, not forking.

RfB

[Vigilant]

To return to the topic on hand, every time I read the thread title, I think it says that James is "fucking" Wikipedia rather than forking it.

Perhaps he's doing both?

I think the term is scissoring, not forking.

RfB

Docking

[Kelly Martin]

I'm going to point out that his fiduciary duty to the Board does not in any way prohibit him from participating in another non-profit with a similar or related purpose. Non-profits in the same "space" are not competitors; rather, they're common actors working toward the same goal. It is exceedingly common for people to serve on the boards of multiple non-profits in the same general area of interest and for non-profits with overlapping purposes to collaborate within their areas of mutual interest.

Remember, the purpose of Wikimedia is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally". As long as whatever he's doing isn't actually oppositional to that, he's not in breach of his "fiduciary" duty. Really the only thing he has to do to avoid a BFD is to give WMF the right of first refusal on the project. I think it's a fair bet that WMF would have refused to participate in this project so even if he did not formally offer them a role in his project, there's no actual harm to the WMF and thus no actionable breach.

[Zoloft]

I'm going to point out that his fiduciary duty to the Board does not in any way prohibit him from participating in another non-profit with a similar or related purpose. Non-profits in the same "space" are not competitors; rather, they're common actors working toward the same goal. It is exceedingly common for people to serve on the boards of multiple non-profits in the same general area of interest and for non-profits with overlapping purposes to collaborate within their areas of mutual interest.

Remember, the purpose of Wikimedia is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally". As long as whatever he's doing isn't actually oppositional to that, he's not in breach of his "fiduciary" duty. Really the only thing he has to do to avoid a BFD is to give WMF the right of first refusal on the project. I think it's a fair bet that WMF would have refused to participate in this project so even if he did not formally offer them a role in his project, there's no actual harm to the WMF and thus no actionable breach.

I'm on the board of a registered charity and my limited understanding of the applicable laws and best practices jibes 100% with this.

*musing*

I undoubtedly would have talked something like this, an effort in the same charitable cause, over with the board, though.

[Vigilant]

Pfft.

He's being a POINTY dick and everyone can see it.

He's gonna get bounced at the next election if not sooner.

[Anroth]

Non-profits in the same "space" are not competitors;

I work for a UK national charity, the wife works for a non-profit and is on the board of another. Suffice to say that sentence is amazingly incorrect in practice in the UK. The competition starts as soon as the word 'funding' comes into play.

Whats that local government? You are only going to provide funding/grants to 3 organisations this year? Hang on, I just need to climb over the other 50 who want cash....

[No Ledge]

Non-profits in the same "space" are not competitors;

Thinking of "nonprofit" American hospital conglomerates in the same markets. They indeed don't compete very strongly on price, and they probably collude in funding the same lobbyists to ensure that the politicians do nothing significant to get in the way of their nonprofit profits. They mostly compete in buying up their competitors.

[C&B]

To return to the topic on hand, every time I read the thread title, I think it says that James is "fucking" Wikipedia rather than forking it.

Saying what we're all thinking, there.

[AngelOne]

I'm going to point out that his fiduciary duty to the Board does not in any way prohibit him from participating in another non-profit with a similar or related purpose.

People serve on the boards of different non-profits all the time, I'm sure. And when James cofounded wpmedf in 2012-3, he wasn't on the WMF Board. I think he has been in a special advisor role for wpmedf since at least 2015-6, when he was previously on the Board, and possibly since 2014, when it was recognized as an Affiliate User Group.

He was on the Board when wpmedf was approved as an thematic organization Affiliate in July 2019 (Affcom submits their recommendations and the Board approves/rejects). I don't know if he recused for that discussion.

Anyways, in some ways it makes sense to have a separate place for what wpmedf wants in articles. These conflicting goals were brought up in the arb case. The most recent big conflicts James was involved in were all related to him doing things to benefit wpmedf - videos, lead cites, things in the lead that weren't in the article, drug prices. Doing all that in his own sandbox makes more sense.

But. The timing of the fork and the fact that he stopped editing wikipedia after receiving a sanction in the arb case looks bad. Also there's no word from the wpmedf board on the fork or any evidence that they're involved; for all intents and purposes, this is James doing this on his own. I find it hard not to see his description of how his fork differs from WP as a giant "fuck you Wikipedia".

James' behavior is what leads me to conclude that he does not support wikipedia. And if he doesn't support it, he's not a suitable community representative and should resign.

[Zoloft]

fork-in-the-road-3674578_640.jpg

[C&B]

The same fork-in-road again...

[Poetlister]

I undoubtedly would have talked something like this, an effort in the same charitable cause, over with the board, though.

James Heilman undoubtedly knows the current board better than any of us does. It's quite likely that he knew he'd be wasting his time doing that.

[Kelly Martin]

Non-profits in the same "space" are not competitors;

I work for a UK national charity, the wife works for a non-profit and is on the board of another. Suffice to say that sentence is amazingly incorrect in practice in the UK. The competition starts as soon as the word 'funding' comes into play.

Whats that local government? You are only going to provide funding/grants to 3 organisations this year? Hang on, I just need to climb over the other 50 who want cash....

While this is quite true, it doesn't create a conflict of fiduciary duty, at least under US non-profit law. (I know almost nothing of UK non-profit law.)

[jf1970]

He's not working for two non-profits; that's not the situation here. He started a new organization that directly competes with his current organization and he did so specifically to do things he wasn't allowed to do by the rules of the current organization, and I'm not even sure if he disclosed that to his current organization. Usurpation, conflict of interest, duty of loyalty, and duty of obedience, all apply to non profit directors in the US. For some examples see http://www.kbrlaw.com/bcostello.pdf

[tarantino]

The good doctor has blanked the pages of almost all documentation and annual reports of Wiki Project Med on meta and put notice that he's moved them to his private sandbox.

[Poetlister]

The good doctor has blanked the pages of almost all documentation and annual reports of Wiki Project Med on meta and put notice that he's moved them to his private sandbox.

That sounds perilously like a rage quit. Does WP:OWN apply on Meta?

[Vigilant]

The good doctor has blanked the pages of almost all documentation and annual reports of Wiki Project Med on meta and put notice that he's moved them to his private sandbox.

The actions of an innocent man who is doing everything above board with a clear conscience.

[Midsize Jake]

Ahh, the ol' private sandbox.



At the moment, though, unless you're logged in the "Permission Error" page comes up for every article on the site:

We are working on a full history import. Until that import is done we have limited visability [sic] of the article space of this wiki to established editors.

This seems a little backwards to me — shouldn't they make at least a few of the articles available to the public before they start asking for donations and asking people to fill out special forms to register accounts? Just to demonstrate that they know how to write (or at least display) articles?

Maybe I'm a little old-fashioned.

[Vigilant]

Doc James made a really smart move when he sectioned off Project Med and made it more reliable. The world is a big place, and it's healthy to know what's going on in it from different perspectives.

Given that the MEDRS cabal essentially reduced medical information to anglophone North American practice, placing these sentences together is comical.

Doc James is apparently a thin skinned liar.

Fram has the deets.

[204]??? Coupled with the above, it looks as if Doc James created a user and user talk page just to post a negative comment about Colin, and then made up all kinds of nonsense here to justify this. I hope there is a better explanation, as otherwise it is basically a case of off-wiki (but in the Wikimedia sphere) hounding of an onwiki opponent, and then lying onwiki about it. Fram (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure that Doc James did it? When taking a quick look at MD Wiki I got the impression that WP-users can log in there using OAuth, i.e. with their Wikipedia account, and then import their own edits on medical articles from enWP, i.e. edits they've made on en-WP, without creating an account om MD Wiki. I got that option at least... - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W talk 13:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Did what? Doc James said "I blocked it on Aug 13 2020.[201] Yes you logged in, there was no failure, and you were able to make edits for a couple of hours to parts of MDWiki.", so they claim that they blocked the account, despite this account not being registered and the block not appearing in Doc James logs. And editors can't import edits without having an approved account, it's the approved editors at Mdwiki who can import edits to then work on (creating a very superficial token nod to the attribution requirements). Anyway, you can see the actual logs, Doc James imported the enwiki user page and talk page of Colin with the sole intention of adding an insulting block notice to the page of an unregistered editor they had an enwiki beef with, and then made up stuff about it here (or this is at least what all evidence so far points at). Fram (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It may need a separate section or subsection, but I do believe that the behaviour of an enwiki admin using another Wikimedia-affiliated project they created and mainatin to insult an enwiki editor they have issues with constitutes off-wiki hounding, and their comments here about this situation seem to be problematic (or at the very least warrant a much better explanation). While the original issue seems to be resolved, I don't think ignoring this one is good. Things that need answers are a) how to reconcile Doc James' account here with the so far verifiable facts, b) why they decided the post an insulting message a year later out of the blue, and c) why they can't at the very least remove these notices? Considering that Colin is also very active in the Wikipedia medical articles area, it is not unlogical that people would look up his user page at the MDwiki project, only to be greeted by comments which totally don't match his actions at MDwiki, or anything close to the date these were added. This seems to be a vindictive continuation of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Fram (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Doc James goes silent...

I removed the hat I added. I did not realize MDwiki was a Wikimedia project. I'm a little stunned to learn this. How often does the WMF provide financial or other support to editors who are sanctioned on enwiki? Forking is one thing, but forking to avoid a sanction and then getting support from the WMF, and then using it to continue the same disputes that got you sanctioned in enwiki? That's a bridge too far for me. Sandy and Fram are right, this looks to me like a pattern of using advance privileges for vindictive pettiness. Levivich (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear for editors who haven't read the whole WP:MED Arbcom, when Levivich mentions "forking to avoid a sanction", James was "prohibited from making any edits relating to pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing in the article namespace". MDWiki's main page explains they deviate from Wikipedia as "Costs of medications are not only permitted but encouraged." -- Colin°Talk 16:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Levivich I have attempted to avoid bludgeoning (something I'm not very good at because my writing often lacks clarity so I end up repeatedly clarifying), but I appreciate that you and Fram are now seeing the bigger issues.
The original issue, the overlap, is that, while James acknowledged the error with Marchand, he seems unwilling to do same when he similarly crosses a boundary with Colin. The commonality is that we all have to take care to understand that Wikipedia is not our personal space or playground, but we should take even greater care when we have admin bits. After seeing that James had responded reasonably to Paul August's request, I raised the separate issue here, fully expecting James would do the same wrt Colin (simply rectify the matter), and did not envision this thread going where it has. But now that it has ...
There is a separate discussion that needs to be had here, but I'm not sure where. To answer Snow Rise's other question, SlimVirgin used to be the best editor at "following the money", but I don't know where to take this next. Maybe at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)? The effect of the post-arbcom MDWiki is to underming medical editing. We can labor away on Wikipedia, trying to create top content, while an essentially private but Wikimedia-affiliated project can import our hard work and create articles that are not DUE, not NPOV, not up to date, and not accurate, and then spread that across the world via translations, and unless we are among the "invited few", there's not a thing we can do about it. Sure, this happens with anything one contributes to Wikipedia, but ... sanctioned by the WMF? In my case, it has certainly impacted my motivation to continue contributing to Wikipedia medical content, as seeing my contributions used to further distortion that is translated worldwide is demoralizing. I don't labor for accuracy, NPOV and due weight so that a Wikimedia-affiliated project can undo my efforts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

[Hemiauchenia]

Doc James is currently geting harangued at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Doc_James'_Deletion_and_Indefinite_Salting_of_Gregory_Marchand (T-H-L)
Initially over getting into a twitter conflict with a surgeon who is a serial UPE user to repeatedly recreate an article about himself. The thread has now shifted over to DJs banning of Colin (T-C-L) from MDwiki.org in 2021, apparently this has something to do with the outcome of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine (T-H-L)

[Vigilant]

Doc James is currently geting harangued at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Doc_James'_Deletion_and_Indefinite_Salting_of_Gregory_Marchand (T-H-L)
Initially over getting into a twitter conflict with a surgeon who is a serial UPE user to repeatedly recreate an article about himself. The thread has now shifted over to DJs banning of Colin (T-C-L) from MDwiki.org in 2021, apparently this has something to do with the outcome of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine (T-H-L)

I just posted this in a different thread.

Mods, could we move my post here?
I think it fits better in this thread.

Moderator's note: Done (the post in question is two entries above this one). Also, this post you're reading now will be deleted after a day or two, assuming we remember to.

[Vigilant]

Maybe David Gerard can get all worked up by links like these and remove all of them.

[ArmasRebane]

Doc James is currently geting harangued at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Doc_James'_Deletion_and_Indefinite_Salting_of_Gregory_Marchand (T-H-L)
Initially over getting into a twitter conflict with a surgeon who is a serial UPE user to repeatedly recreate an article about himself. The thread has now shifted over to DJs banning of Colin (T-C-L) from MDwiki.org in 2021, apparently this has something to do with the outcome of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine (T-H-L)

I don't get how DJ doing something on his own wiki is particularly relevant. Obviously plenty of bad blood remains from the Medicine case, but it doesn't directly relate other than DocJames demonstrating he getting easily riled.

The serial UPE surgeon probably shouldn't have his own article, but that could have been dealt with by any number of means other than "I'm going to blatantly go and delete your article because I'm upset with you on social media".

[Vigilant]

Doc James is currently geting harangued at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Doc_James'_Deletion_and_Indefinite_Salting_of_Gregory_Marchand (T-H-L)
Initially over getting into a twitter conflict with a surgeon who is a serial UPE user to repeatedly recreate an article about himself. The thread has now shifted over to DJs banning of Colin (T-C-L) from MDwiki.org in 2021, apparently this has something to do with the outcome of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine (T-H-L)

I don't get how DJ doing something on his own wiki is particularly relevant. Obviously plenty of bad blood remains from the Medicine case, but it doesn't directly relate other than DocJames demonstrating he getting easily riled.

The serial UPE surgeon probably shouldn't have his own article, but that could have been dealt with by any number of means other than "I'm going to blatantly go and delete your article because I'm upset with you on social media".

lol

Let's not go there. The Osmosis media wasn't freely editable by the community (a private corporation created the content at its own expense with its own staff, controlled changes to the content, often refusing community requests, and expected advertising in return). The community here rejected that. I think the immediate concern for AN/I is James cross-project "vindictive" pattern, and their response to both cases being to ignore the question of themselves doing anything wrong and to attack the other guy, in my case, with fabulations. -- Colin°Talk 18:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

This is what should happen:
* Doc James shouldn't be an admin on en.wp after this.
* MDWiki shouldn't be paid for, in whole or in part, by the WMF.
* MDWiki links shouldn't be allowed on en.wp.

[Vigilant]

Forking is one thing, but forking to avoid a sanction and then getting support from the WMF, and then using it to continue the same disputes that got you sanctioned in enwiki? That's a bridge too far for me. Sandy and Fram are right, this is a pattern.

[The Blue Newt]

Fork ‘em all!
Fork ‘em all,
The long and the stub (Which is small).
Fork stuff about plants and ‘bout all of God’s creatures;
Fork Pic-o-the-Day; indeed all the day’s features!
Cause we know it don’t matter at all.
We’ve already had quality fall.
But spirits will bounce up
When the article count’s up.
It’s all we can do,
Fork ‘em all!

[The Blue Newt]

Looking over there at the article on type II diabetes, I’d say that Wiki and the Doc’s shadow of it are pretty well forked fucked already. Roy Taylor demonstrated that it could be put in remission what, 11 years ago?