This is a computer generated list of edits inserting and removing Osmosis videos to 308 medical articles. Each edit has a diff-count change, a date-time stamp, the user who made the edit, and any edit summary used. I removed edits that were clearly vandalism-related. I have analysed each of the edits to identify any areas of conflict.
Of 306 video addition edits made by Doc James, 21 (7%) have edit summary "added video", 152 (50%) have "added", 124 (41%) are blank and 9 (3%) suggest other activity. Four Osmosis videos are added by other editors, all with full edit summaries. Dendrite added by User:Seppi333, eclampsia added by User:DrKMD, and both spaced repetition and ulcerative colitis by User:OsmoseIt.
New user User:Timtammittee removed the video saying "There are multiple mistakes in this Video (e.g explanation of refractory period, repolarisation due to sodium potassium pump ....)" but they reverted themselves shortly after. Perhaps they just wanted to make that comment.
An IP removes the video from ALL: "The video is horrible. It is incorrect in multiple areas. This student is not an expert in AML or ALL and should not be posting such poor and incorrect videos" and removes the video from AML: "The video is wrong. The details from the student who is explaining leukemias is fraught with notable errors. The video should not be used". The first is restored next day by James with summary "adjusted" and the latter restored with summary "Revert good faith edits. Can you explain these errors?"
User:Colin removed the same video from autism, asperger syndrome and autism spectrum, and noted on talk that the video fails WP:V and WP:MEDRS. 30 minutes later User:CFCF reverted the edits to autism, asperger syndrome and autism spectrum.
User:Colin removed the video, noting on talk the video fails WP:V and WP:MEDRS. Doc James reverted 3 hours later, then replying on the talk page that the video per WP:LEAD needs only to be supported by the body text and no inline references are required. This claim is false as the video content is not based on the article content, and deviates considerably. James is well known to insist that medical article leads must contain many citations, and battle editors who remove them citing WP:LEAD.
James added a video about SIADH to this article on hyponatremia. User:IiKkEe 2017-09-15 13:53 removed it explaining "delete video - it's about SIADH, not hyponatremia". This is true, SIADH is only one of many causes of hyponatremia and the video is quite long and specific to that condition. James restored it that night: "restored". The following day IiKkEe removed it again "Video on SIADH deleted. I deleted this once, with explanation: "it's about SIADH, not hyponatremia". It was restored with explanation "restored". A fuller explanation :thisvideo is about one of numerous causes of hyponatremia:if interested in SIADH". James restored it again a couple of days later: "not sure why this was removed" and then posts to the talk page. IiKkEe explains "Have you viewed it? It's pretty detailed [about SIADH], more than a high school kid who just wants to know what hyponatremia is."
James added the video and User:BallenaBlanca removed it later that day, posting to the talk page reasons why the video has problems. James restores an "updated" version. BallenaBlanca removes it saying it still has errors. James reverts saying "It is still useful content". This video's issues exemplifies why relying on a third party to make edits doesn't work. The company make no further fixes because there is no commercial reason for them to do so. We are stuck with a video that may have some useful content but also has errors nobody can fix. See discussions in Talk:Coeliac disease/Archive 5#Coeliac disease video and Talk:Coeliac disease/Archive 6#Video.