User:Figs Might Ply/Minphie

Dispute resolution

Consensus, Cooperation & Civility with response from user in question

Stuck

– Next step would be RfC - see below.

This was archived before it could be commented on by all involved & Minphie had their edit deleted because they pulled it out of the archives instead of starting a new process. So I've done it this way to give them a say. --Figs Might Ply

I've been editing a number of pages relating to drug policy recently, and have noticed a lot of conflict between a few of editors and, Minphie. Minphie and I have opposing views on how governments should respond to drug use, which is fine, however Minphie has been not been assuming good faith, not been civil and sometimes making edits that I believe are not in keeping with various wikipedia policy guidelines. I would like to request that someone reiterate to Minphie that consensus, cooperating and civility are important here on wikipedia. It's fine that we disagree on content, but we need to be in agreement about how to resolve this dispute as effective editors.

Examples of Minphie not adhering to wikiquette

Threatening to "take it further"

On the Harm reduction talk page, Minphie has multiple times told other editors (Figs Might Ply, Steinberger, Rakkar) that they will be reported for vandalism or inappropriate editing. We have demonstrated multiple times with reference to WP:NOTVAND that our edits are fair. Minphie does not accept this and keeps telling us he is keeping a log of our "infringements" that he will use to report us. User:Rakkar was reported to administrator JohnCD in early april, and received thefollowing response: I have advised Minphie that this is a content dispute, not vandalism, and that if you and s/he cannot reach a WP:Consensus by discussion on talk pages you should follow the process described at WP:Dispute resolution. JohnCD

Undue weight

Without reigniting the arguments here, I would like to contend that Minphie is trying to unbalance a number of drug policy related articles by adding large amounts of criticism. As per Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight, Minphie's versions of the articles listed at the end of this report often contain more criticism than content. I agree that drug policies are a contentious issue, and different people in the community oppose various methods. So it's good and fine for the article to contain information on this, but not so much that most of the article is about this opposition. If I could give the following example, Minphie added so much criticism that the article was about 70% criticism. Steinberger has trimmed it down, and regardless of the exact content, I believe that the article looks a lot easier to read now.

Unwillingness to compromise

Minphie believes that they have unquestionable truth on a number of points, and is unwilling to engage in debate about these issues. on the Talk:Harm reduction page, they have made the following comments:

Here is the reason I won't tolerate any further deletions on the Sweden issue. - Goes on to claim to have unquestionable information
I won't tolerate this clear obstructionism in the future - claiming that because wikipedia policies around WP:Weasel have not been applied to every example of weasel words, his use of weasel words should be exempt.

Articles where disputes take place

I have tagged Minphie's talk page as requested. I hope we can reach an understanding between all editors. --Figs Might Ply (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Minphie’s reply

Minphie wanted to have their say on the matter after it was archived so I've dug it out of the archive and reposted it. --Figs Might Ply

I am re-posting the charges of Figs Might Ply on Wikiquette Alerts dated 09/05/2010 before replying below - Minphie

I seek to redress this issue in line with WP:Civility.B626mrk (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC) I believe that any objective adjudicator of this issue would want to know the following before providing assistance:

Consensus/Compromise?

I’ll first address this singular charge of unwillingness to compromise. I believe this charge arises out of an entirely fallacious and mistaken notion of consensus which, quite realistically, would not be given life within any academic forum. User:Gerardw expresses this false notion well on User talk:Minphie section – “taking it further’ where he urged:

"Strange as it might seem being correct is not the criteria for content on Wikipedia. Rather verifiable, balanced presentation as determined by consensus determines Wikipedia content. If you have one position and two or three editors have the other, than you are in the wrong to keep adding/reverting content. You can utilize article WP:RFC (or WP:THIRD if it's just two of you) to get more eyes on the issue."

This erroneous notion of consensus dictates that if I assert that 2+2=4 on Wikipedia, but a number of Wikipedia:WikiProject Drug Policy members rather assert that 2+2=3, that consensus must be found by no longer seeking to be correct as User:Gerardw asserts, but by seeking compromise (perhaps 2+2 will equal 3.5 now on Wikipedia) or if by weight of numbers 2+2 will now equal 3 because they had the majority in the discussion. Of course, if the claim is made that Wikipedia cannot record anything without some level of agreement by those in the discussion, then 2+2 won’t ever be asserted on Wikipedia, no matter its importance to the world at large, while the stonewalling of the 2+2=3 cabal continues. The kind of irrational consensus promoted by user Gerardw would be given no credence whatsoever in any academic or cooperative forum, and Wikipedia would lose its credibility if it was. True rational consensus is about agreeing on what, amongst the correct information available, is relevant to the topic at hand. Thus being correct is still absolutely critical to Wikipedia’s credibility.

The ‘contentious’ issue that has brought this complaint from User:Figs Might Ply is whether: 1. Sweden has attained the lowest illicit drug use in the OECD (see Revision History of Harm Reduction from 29 April to present) 2. whether this is due to its restrictive drug policy introduced in 1982. (see Revision History of Harm Reduction for May 4,5)

Evidencing issue 1 is my citation from the United Nations Office of Drug Control (UNODC) World Report 2000 showing that Sweden had the lowest cumulative drug use in the developed world, which is easily calculated from the percentages on the tables in the pages I cited. These figures cannot be disputed with any rational weight of argument, butUser:Steinberger has repeatedly used arguments that don’t even address the issue of achieving lowest use to remove my text from the Harm Reduction page. I have put it back because it is 1. correct 2. relevant to the argument 3. brief and 4. Steinberger is a proponent of heroin trials, not a critic, and should not decide how critics put there argument if it is relevant, brief and correct.

Evidencing issue 2 is an entire UNODC document on Sweden’s drug policy of 100 pages which shows correlations between the introduction of their restrictive drug policy and steep drops in drug use. Seeing as User:Steinberger has frequently contributed to a subsection on Drug policy of the Netherlands section - 'Results of the drug policy' which assumes a causal relationship between their drug policy and their drug use statistics, it is disingenuous of User:Steinberger to question the very highly probable causation of evidenced drug policy in Sweden. Steinberger and Figs Might Ply can be observed on the Discussion page taking their objections to these to issues to absurd lengths, simply, it would seem, so they claim that there is no consensus and keep factual and correct text off the page. I will now progress this dispute by taking this issue of erroneous consensus definitions and tactical stonewalling and obfuscation to the appropriate forums in Wikipedia such that the guidelines are strengthened such that this does not continue to happen on Wikipedia. Its continuation will only harm Wikipedia’s credibility as a reliable information source. Also the use of block deletions to remove huge slabs of factual and carefully cited text for one small issue under discussion in the midst of the slab of text also needs to be questioned guideline-wise. Etiquette would demand that the rest of the factual and cited text remain while one sentence among the many is discussed. This was an issue with User:Rakkar, another member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Drug Policy.

Incivility?

The current issue had its origins in a first deletion of a factual and meticulously cited paragraph on criticisms of injecting rooms on the Harm Reduction page dated 29 April 2010. The deletion was by user: Figs Might Ply, who notably is the one lodging the various grievances on this page. user:Figs Might Ply entered no discussion on the Talk page, but deleted highly relevant text for the following subjective reason as entered into the Edit Summary (→Safe injection sites: Deleted a bit. This paragraph seemed to have a pretty warped version of the truth. Can we replace it with something better?) I dispassionately wrote user:Figs Might Ply via their user page that there would need to be good and discussed reason for deleting my contribution. I will leave it with observers/adjudicators of this issue to determine the civility or good faith of this opening move by user:Figs Might Ply.

I believe that what any objective adjudicator must determine, then, is whether this complaint by user:Figs Might Ply, also on behalf of user:Steinberger, is a case of the aggressor crying foul when someone stands up to their inappropriate behaviours. Again the history of these behaviours can be tracked through the Talk:Harm reduction and Revision history of Harm reduction section 22.

Undue Weight

I am happy to support the criticism of undue weight, and have adjusted the Safe Injection Site accordingly.

Minphie

FMP Resurrects Matter

Minphie, I really do want to try and sort this out properly, and I hope you will appreciate that I have gone to the effort of resubmitting this matter as it had been archived and your response was subsequently not seen.

I seek to redress this issue in line with WP:Civility.B626mrk (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Could you explain what this line meant? I'm most confused as B626mrk has never been involved in editing drug related articles to my knowledge. I'll invite Steinberger to come and talk this over too.--Figs Might Ply (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Minphie, read and understand WP:OR. Not only the factual statistics in an argumentation should be verified, the whole argument should also be verified. You just can't take a figure from a source, such as you for example done from kingheathpartners.org [here and use it to make an argument of lacking cost-effectiveness when, in the source you cite, they make the contrary argument with the same and the alternative cost figures (that you omit). That is not just misappropriate, its and violation of Wikipedia policies. NPOV also say that matters of opinion should be attributed to the one who makes them. This is also something you constantly miss, as you take facts and use them with your own opinions in writing. Steinberger (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to refer Minphie to our verifiability policy. The piece above about whether 2+2=4 makes it seem that Minphie has missed the point entirely. Wikipedia should say 2+2=4, not because a minority of editors know they are right and hold out fanatically against all opposition, but because the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say so. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If problems persist, the next steps in dispute resolution would be user conduct RfC as it will focus on discussing conduct issues of this sort. But it might be easier to clarify how his conduct is affecting content by first using article RfC, formal mediation or informal mediation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Harm reduction

I and some other editors have a problem with Minphie (talk · contribs). He have his way on many articles in the scope of Harm reduction and is "juxtaposeing" to make "valid arguments" against harm reduction that is "evidenced and factual" and "logically correct". However, looking at the sources he uses, in many cases it is evidenced that they not are critical of harm reduction. In one instance he for example uses kingheathpartners.org to make an argument against de cost-effectiveness of heroine assisted treatment, but looking at the source kingheathpartners.org is actually making the contrary argument, that it is cost-effective. Then he brings Sweden to that table, using a source that does not say anything about wither Sweden is have a cost-effective drug policy or is making it an alternative to heroin assisted maintenance. Another example of OR is this where he saw together an original synthesis with the same kind of selectivity shown above, not showing that the "critics" in fact used the sources in the way he did.

I would be pleased if someone took a look at the above, informed Minphie a last time about original research and then reverted his edits to Harm reduction.Steinberger (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Steinberger has not understood the differences in formal logic between synthesis and deduction, and herein lies his misunderstanding. I have indeed cited a medical media release on the UK heroin trial as my source for the COST per participant and as my source for the ONGOING ADDITIONAL COSTS of acquisitive crime to the UK community from these same participants despite their provision of free heroin. I have then juxtaposed (not synthesized) the ongoing costs of heroin maintenance with the once-off costs of rehabilitating heroin users such that they cost the community nothing in acquisitive crime or ongoing maintenance. The deduction is clear and indubitable.

IF the heroin trial participants are still costing the UK community 15,000+ pounds p.a. in real terms (as demonstrated from my cited source)

AND a rehabilitated user, who after an initial one-off investment costs the community no pounds at all (a given)

THEN the rehabilitated user is the cheaper strategy.

This is precisely the argument of the critics of the heroin trials. There is no synthesis or original research. Straightforward deduction is not empirical research in any shape of form, where rather it is 'induction' at play. Unless Steinberger can grasp the difference between deduction and induction he may continue to make the error of thinking that deduction is original research. Others may assist him better than I. I have put a similar explanation on the Harm Reduction Talk page.

Minphie (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that is still an WP:Synthesis and the result you get when doing it is factually wrong. The addicts that can get heroin by prescription have failed numerous attempts at rehabilitation, including with methadone. They are the treatment-resistant worst five per cent, according to your source. The alternative to heroin as given in the source you quote is not rehabilitation, but prison and the cost for a year in prison, according to the source you quote, is 44k£.

Your argument however, can still be done. But then you have to have a source where it is made explicitly and properly attribute it to it. That is perfectly fine and in accordance with WP:OR. But that is not the case here, is it? Steinberger (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, as I read Wikipedia's policy on Original Research "straightforward deduction", as you call it, is a classic example of original research. Any logical inference from the sources, that is not explicitly stated in the sources, is Original Research. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur. We are documenting knowledge, not drawing and presenting further inferences and conclusions we create from it. While in academia the process described might be considered deduction, it's a pretty cut and dried synthesis/OR issue for a neutral encyclopedia. If a credible independent third party had drawn and published those same conclusions in reliable sources, that would be different. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice to hear that I have understood the policy correct. Thanks both for taking your time. Steinberger (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)