Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Dreamy Jazz (Talk) & Guerillero (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Bradv (Talk) & David Fuchs (Talk) & Maxim (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case opened on 19:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Case closed on 14:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 03:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Case information[edit]

Involved parties[edit]

Prior dispute resolution[edit]

Preliminary statements[edit]

Statement by Barkeep49[edit]

This is a dispute over what kind of information about pricing of drugs and medicines belongs in articles that goes back years. The community made an admirable attempt to solve this dispute at the most recent ANI thread which I closed and then attempted to implement as an uninvolved administrator. This lead to an RfC which was recently closed. However, the RfC, despite finding consensus in some areas has not stopped the conflict as shown at Simvastatin and Ethosuximide. While at the core a content dispute and a dispute about our policies, there is enough disruptive behavior that an ArbCom case could lead to a structure or remedies to allow the disruptive behavior to end and our dispute resolution mechanism, which have been tried to their fullest, to stick. I have named the maximum number participants in this discussion/dispute that the template allows but there are several others who could be included and I have simply included those as parties who seem most involved (with a slight bias towards administrators) and I believe some of the listed parties have committed no behavioral issues while a couple of unlisted parties have exhibited behavior that could be sanctioned. 3:31, March 30, 2020‎ (UTC)

Newyorkbrad if the discussion were merely happening at the Medicine WikiProject trying to sort everything out, even if that got a bit contentious, I would say of course not. However, Simvastatin's article history points to edit warring involving a quite a few editors. And then at a different article the response to an edit being challenged was to immediately open another RfC seemingly re-litigating elements of the last RfC. I don't know if this was the right time. I wish these editors were focused on pandemic related content. But that wish is't the reality I'm seeing and I do not have hope that another RfC, narrower in scope than the last one and thus not likely to do more than achieve consensus at a particular article, is going to be effective dispute resolution for a conflict which is hundreds of articles in scope and has active edit warring among a non-limited set of editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: Obviously you can't and shouldn't solve the areas the community left to no consensus. However, the RfC decided a fair bit more than just whether it should be in the lead. It's evidence of edit warring over those elements, and the immediate rush to a new RfC which I see not as a dispute resolution mechanism but to "win" their way, that suggests to me that the past behavior which I believe to fall short of community expectations is going to continue. Even in the midst of a global pandemic when I would think editors in this topic might have better things to do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re:other parties, Sandy covered the other people I considered as parties minus Rexx who has also been active in the area. I would just like to repeat, so people don't get the wrong idea about my adding Rexx, about my view that not all the parties listed have done anything against policy but are parties simply because they are active in this dispute. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Colin[edit]

James has singled-handedly inserted prices into the lead of over 530 drug articles over the past five years, rejecting long-standing WP:NOTPRICES policy forbidding this, and ignoring two RFCs on the matter. The first in 2016 found no consensus to add prices, except when sources note significance. Despite this RFC rejection of routine drug price inclusion, James cited it when adding prices to the MEDMOS guideline in September 2019. QuackGuru then added to MEDMOS an advocacy statement against the pharmaceutical industry as justification for including prices. This is what sparked the dispute that led to the second RFC in 2020. That RFC also re-affirmed the WP:NOTPRICES requirement for extensive discussion in secondary sources, and went further to disallow prices in the article lead, and the use of primary source price databases as the sole source of a price figure. This RFC conclusion satisfies the core of the dispute, and has been confirmed again by the closing admin

The edit warring by James and Ozzie10aaaa that sparked Barkeep's request is not a recent feature (and previously involved the currently blocked QuackGuru). There have been two dozen conflicts over many years, where multiple editors have had their policy-based attempts to remove prices from drug articles thwarted by a swift revert by James. The edit war at Simvastatin on the 30th was a disgraceful rejection of the RFC result. The five editors that James and Ozzie10aaaa reverted (WhatamIdoing, SandyGeorgia, Graham Beards, Hipal/Ronz, Seraphimblade) are James's peers, equals, and have collectively decades of Wikipedia wisdom, experience and hard earned respect in editing medical topics. James showed them no respect, reverting them all (with Ozzie10aaaa's per-Doc-James help). My own single edit to Ethosuximide was made after extensive discussion at the RFC and unanimous (including James) support that the price claim made was untenable. It was rejected and the claim restored by James within hours -- edit summary "Adjusted".

James frequently takes an idiosyncratic interpretation of our sources and policy. Where policy requires commentary in mainstream media sources and rejects passing mention, James offers passing mention in a specialist textbook and a single Italian retail price from twenty years ago. When the RFC disallowed the use of a primary source database of product prices, James took the PDF export of that database and claimed it was a "recognised standard textbook by experts in a field" (i.e., a tertiary source).

James believes "we have a very strong lobby which wishes to suppress pricing information but we are not censored", and he is engaged in a battle to include prices on all drug articles. Editors who remove prices are "pushing the industry position to try to WP:CENSOR Wikipedia". James claims "Ongoing lawsuits by industry to prevent having to disclose the price in commercials. Obviously that demonstrates that they are of encyclopedic value". The battle justifies edit warring with peers, ignoring policy and rejecting the outcome of two RFCs.

Statement by Doc James[edit]

Thanks User:Barkeep49 for opening this. While the prior RfC came to a conclusion against including numerical prices in the lead. The conclusion was not for removal of all pricing information generally (despite this some appear to interpret the conclusion that way). Additionally it does not come to a conclusion around using none numerical expressions of cost in the lead. Hopefully the current RfCs will clarify some of that.

With respect to behavioral issues, they stretch much farther back than this issue as discussed at the ANI in Dec of 2019 with respect to Colin. Unfortunately the behavioral issues were refactored as a content issue. An atmosphere has been created over the last number of months / years at WPMED that makes many editors hesitant to engage in discussions as they are concerned that the great attention Colin directs towards me will be turned their direction.

On Dec 2nd I requested that Colin stop pinging me.(Dec 2nd at 19:04) I had previously requested, a number of years back that they not post on my talk page, which they also did not follow. Colin "replied to this request: James As long as you won't drop this issue, you'll get pinged whenever I mention your name." and he not only pinged me in the reply but continued pinging.[1]

After being brought to ANI and being threatened with a block they backed down. SandyGeorgia was the first one to respond and did not appear to have any concerns with their behavior. She has continued on the pinging tradition with 6 pings today, all to bring my attention to a single discussion I was obviously watching.[2][3][4][5][6][7] Sandy has criticized me multiple times for requesting unwanted pings to stop, today stating "you disallowed pings and were not keeping up with discussion".

When the harassment team initial stated they were developing a tool to silence unwanted pings, I did not think such as thing was needed as I assumed all one would ever have to do was politely ask. I have now changed my position on this and fully support the development of such a tool.

@User:Newyorkbrad agree not the best timing for some of us. @Agree with User:DGG. We are also having a disagreement over what language such as "little" means with some claiming a multiple page discussion of prices is still "little". Some are attempting to apply to this topic area "rules" we would never apply to anything else just because some editors do not like this content.

Other issues include... Disagreement with the position to write for a general audience. Some disagree with ongoing work to collaborate between languages. Some disagree with attempts to innovate around the types of content we provide. And some disagree with my involvement generally. If we decide to address this after the current pandemic that is not unreasonable but I imagine we will be back to address the ongoing behavioral problems. The speed at which, by who, and with the degree of pointedness that the RfC conclusions were raised at WT:MED makes that clear.

Parsing this sentence "Where secondary sources discuss pricing extensively (insulin being a frequently cited example), that information may be worth including in the article; where there is little discussion of pricing in secondary sources, it generally should not be included." I interpret it to mean as long as we have secondary sources that extensively discussion costs / prices it can be included.

This "Where pricing information is included, claims should be sourced to reliable, secondary sources and not solely primary source data from price databases." I do not take that to mean that the price database cannot be used ever. If that was the case it would say this source published by the World Health Organization[8] should never be used despite MEDRS stating source from the WHO are among the ideal.

Yes WAID's summary of the close is completely different than how I would interpret the summary. It is interesting to note that 24% of text in the prior RfC was from Colin, 22% from WAID and 15% from Sandy (three people wrote >60% of the bytes).[9] Easy to see how that may not represent community consensus or how suppressing other opinions may be occurring.

Statement by QuackGuru[edit]

Statement by SandyGeorgia[edit]

Go forward, with flexibility for COVID-related timing issues. James has time; if not, he could make time by leaving space for others to edit, rather than exercising control across the spectrum of medical content. The drug pricing dispute is the latest symptom (among many) of OWNERSHIP affecting WPMED, with behavior furthered by enablers, who showup with no policy-based reasoning in James' RFC proliferation where !voting is preferenced over discussion,[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] and winning is preferenced over policy. Driving this division-- and desire to "win" over content in the lead of Every Single Medical Article-- are differences about on-en.Wikipedia policy-based editing [15] versus external (non-en.Wikipedia) projects, that use leads only of medical articles, and expect them to be written differently than Wikipedia policy supports. [16] Proponents are typically convinced they are saving lives by re-writing leads to the neglect of overall content, and justify that as the reason for ignoring policy.

The case name is inadequate; this advocacy editing extends beyond drug pricing, and disallows others from enjoying editing to produce policy-based and accurate, timely medical text-- something the Medicine Project once excelled at.[17][18] One editor has exercised control over inconceivable amounts of content, often edit warring, editing always too quickly, making customary editing errors while trying to do too much, too fast[19][20] counting on RFC !voting whenever pushback occurs, and furthering inaccurate representations[21] [22] of others' behavior (example, the misrepresented pinging description).

Granting "exceptional"[23] leeway on timing to one editor will further the long-standing problems. Dozens of editors spent FOUR months formulating and participating in an RFC. One group scarcely engaged, so the "need to act on that" time is upon us. Deferring to an editor who scarcely engaged in DR about volumes of non-policy-compliant text added by him will not address the recurring behavioral issues proliferating across all areas of medical content, and causing several experienced editors (including editors who helped form the history and reputation of WPMED) to stop editing.

I advocated a methodical approach to implementation [24] of a useful RFC. [25] James disregarded the community-wide RFC,[26] launching two new RFCs of his own. In good faith, when specifically asked at the ANI if James should be topic banned, I suggested trying an RFC.[27] Only as the RFC evolved did I understand that the alleged broad drug pricing dispute never existed; it was only two editors (Bluerasberry and Doc James, in a few instances backed in editwarring by QuackGuru and Ozzie10aaaa, sometimes by Jytdog), and we should have been examining that behavior.[28][29][30][31] No more RFCs.

There are considerable issues going back many years. Measures to address one aspect of a larger problem have proven unsuccessful. Considering the number of parties and issues, word limits will be a problem.

  • @DGG:, I don't know if I am allowed to respond to you, since I am at my word limit. Could someone please explain how word limits apply to responding to arb queries? Re deferring on timing, that is precisely what I mean about preferencing "exceptional" editors who didn't bother to participate in the RFC over all of the rest of us who gave four months to this-- our Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's and Valentine's-- while James and others largely ignored the RFC. Those editors who are supposedly SO busy are overtaxed because of the very OWNERSHIP issue, that has caused the rest of us to leave the Medicine Project, which has caused medical content OVERALL, including coronavirus, to suffer. We All Count. The truth is MOST medical editors are not involved in COVID editing, which is largely not medical content at this point-- it's politics and tallying numbers. It is unfair, after we gave four solid months, that we would be expected to continue editing in such a toxic environment, or that our time should be devalued, or that we should now be expected to ALSO give up our summers, at a time when we may be released from stay-at-home. And this furthers the "exceptional" treatment often granted to one user. No, I do not want to give my entire summer to another attempt to break through a solid wall of IDHT. Please do not postpone this case; that will only continue the misery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When summer comes along, and you all are ready to address the case, while I am away at my cabin, are you then going to also allow me an exception, and extend the case until winter, when I have editing time? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeblebrox: the reasons this cannot be solved by motion are too extensive to explain in a 500-word limit. Any kind of motion to stop the impediments to dispute resolution will not address the bigger picture, which is long-standing issues due to non-en.wikipedia factors dominating en.Wikipedia dispute resolution processes and content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Back and forth about SandyGeorgia's request for DGG's recusal.

DGG has refused to recuse. The next step is for SandyGeorgia to email arbcom-l to "refer the request to the Committee for a ruling" if she would like to appeal DGG's refusal. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note to arbs: Per this list (which I just discovered), I request the recusal of DGG, as part of a core issue of the central dispute. Secondary to the core dispute is DGG's recusal in the Jytdog case, as issues there are also relevant here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
. I am certainly not going to recuse here. I gave a single comment about the timing--I can see both sides of that, and I am not sure I have the same opinion I did at the first, partly because I realize, as do you, that COVID will be a long extended situation. I am a member of Project Med, as are many other people. The project consists of those interested in the subject of improving medical content in Wikipedia, not of only those who take a particular approach to it. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG Just to be clear that you understood the link I gave and the question I raise: that is not a member list for Wikipedia:Wikiproject Medicine (WP:MED); it is the separate Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF), which has its own governing board and bylaws and its own external-to-en.Wikipedia projects, aims, applications and interests. That Foundation is a key part of the WP:MED tension (I have highlighted a word in my original statement for clarity), because the aims of that Project, and some of its members, are frequently at odds with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is separately, also, your recusal on the Jytdog case; an editor who is also part of this dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; I'm a member.; I do not consider its aims incompatible with WP, though some of them would be inappropriate on Wikipedia; for example, some of its advocacy. This does not imply I agree with everything all of its members do, any more than my being a member of arb com implies I automatically agree with every decision it makes, let alone everything any of its other people say. There is nothing likely to occur in this case with respect to jytdog for which I need to recuse; I recused in the jytdog case because I thought I might want to testify, though in the end I decided not to. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: thank you for the response regarding Jytdog, which I understand and accept. But regarding WPMEDF, I hope you will reconsider, as it is an advocacy organization and the use of Wikipedia-- at times and by some members in breach of core policies and guidelines-- to advance external aims are the core of this dispute, of which drug advocacy is only the latest of many issues. Examining the effect of this organization's advocacy on editors, content, and the deteriorating WP:MED situation is an important feature of what this dispute and case is about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the aims of WP and WPMEDF incompatible, I will certainly listen to your argument. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade[edit]

A lengthy RfC was just concluded a couple of days ago. However, its effects are substantial and apparently still in some cases unclear, so that is still being sorted. Since that is at heart a content matter, I do not see how arbitration will be anything but an impediment to that process. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WhatamIdoing[edit]

Timing: Some of us apparently have time to edit-war and to start multiple RFCs to try to vote against the RFC, so we have time to talk about it.

Whether we should be here yet: I don't think so. If you look at Doc James' comment here, which mentions only the first of the 10 sentences in the closing statement, and his recent editing, which does seem to mostly ignore the other nine sentences, I think it shows how this might be solvable without ArbCom's intervention. This would require a few hours from User:Wugapodes and User:Ymblanter to re-write the closing statement in WP:BRADSPEAK, as a list of required or prohibited statements. For example, it could be re-written something like this (NB purely an example of style, not real content):

Original first bullet point Potentially clearer version
  • Editors are generally opposed to inclusion of prices in the lede. While basic calculations are not considered original research, the pricing statements in the examples require interpretation of primary sources that may not be straightforward. This makes the editorial claims difficult to verify, and especially so for drugs whose prices are not widely discussed in published sources. In addition, there are concerns that proper explanation of the situation for the indicated price would give the price undue weight.
  1. Content of the lede:
    • Drug prices may not be mentioned in the lede in most articles about drugs. Prices may be mentioned in the lede only under exceptional circumstances, such as an especially high price or claims of price gouging. For the avoidance of doubt, "exceptional circumstances" are likely to be present in less than 10% of drug articles.
    • Prices may not be mentioned in the lede unless the price is already discussed in significantly greater detail in the body of the article.
  2. Use of MSH's International Medical Products Price Guide database: Remove all uses of this database. There is a clear consensus that using this complex, primary-source drug price database requires interpretation by Wikipedia editors that is not straightforward, and therefore using that source is not permitted under the core content policies. The good-faith attempt to use it has led to widespread WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NOTPRICE violations. Using it accurately would require a lengthy description in articles, which would result in WP:WEIGHT violations. Editors therefore may not use the IMPPG database to support drug price content in any article.
    • Editors may, however, cite other reliable sources that use this database.

The end result would be long, but it would make it easier for editors to understand what to do, and it would clear up theconfusion about whether the deprecated database can be "redeemed" by adding another sentence that's cited to a NOTPRICE-compliant source.

The level of confusion: I particularly hope that ArbCom members will look at this short discussion. The relevant facts are:

  • The second sentence from the RFC conclusion is "While basic calculations are not considered original research, the pricing statements in the examples [i.e., content sourced to the IMPPG database] require interpretation of primary sources that may not be straightforward."
  • Simvastatin had a sentence sourced to the IMPPG. As it's not allowed per the second sentence, I removed it.
  • Doc James restored it because he didn't think that picking and choosing which parts of which database records we took the content from counted as "interpretation" of the database. The discussion at Talk:Simvastatin#In depth discussion is me listing off all the interpretations he made (plus one outright error).

That's where we are right now. Aside from perhaps lending their moral weight to say that the outcome really is the outcome, I think ArbCom's intervention will be less useful than expanding the RFC closing statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlmostFrancis[edit]

It looks like this will be accepted but I would ask the arbitrators to really think how they would explain this to people indifferent to the inner workings of Wikipedia. You have decided to take the time of an ER doctor in the middle of a pandemic who happens to spend his free time updating the world on the ongoing pandemic, which they do without pay. The only reason there has not been an article in the press on this is because the ER Doc happens to care more about Wikipedia than his own well being. I implore you in every possible way to accept this case if you feel it is necessary but to delay it until August. Pass whatever temp content ban you need. As someone who spends little time on Wikipedia I implore you to consider how working against a pandemic will cause real harm to actual people. Sorry it has come to this and I wish you and your families well. AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Avicenno[edit]

Statement by bluerasberry[edit]

I would like to request delay on this topic until further notice due to COVID-19. This issue concerns WikiProject Medicine and the focus of that project right now is COVID-19. The primary outcome of this issue being discussed anywhere will be distraction from developing COVID-19 content. The matter of price is not urgent and has been pending for years. No harm comes from postponement. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CFCF[edit]

I will request Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing. I no longer have the time or energy to edit Wikipedia. Carl Fredrik talk 14:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a few days to rethink. My hospital is operating at 200% ICU capacity, soon to open an exhibition hall south of Stockholm with 1000+ beds. I have offered my help from March 16 ahead of the predicted peak. This is a stressful time for me — in which I had planned to prepare by getting some COVID-19 editing done. I anticipate not being able to edit soon.
In the newly opened WT:MED discussion I indicated that the current timing might cause systematic bias and potentially lead to incomplete consensus. I asked Colin and others to proceed with caution, preferably delaying much needed discussion. I was castigated by SandyGeorgia for "personalizing",[33] with Colin expressing: Carl, it is clear what you are doing here. Get over it, move on. I do not intend to discuss the matter further with you.[34]
If ArbCom chooses to take this up, I will likely not take part, but would hope for a broad scope.
Carl Fredrik talk 18:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hipal/Ronz[edit]

I'm stunned by the behavior I've been seeing related to pricing across Wikipedia in order to support some sort of broad exception to content policies. It needs to stop, but it appears ArbCom is the only way it's going to.[35] --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I believe editors are ignoring and misrepresenting the results of the RfC (even in this Case page) in order to continue to push article content against consensus and policy, including pricing content in the lede of articles. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ozzie10aaaa[edit]

I would indicate the wise statement from Blue Rasberry would like to request delay on this topic until further notice due to COVID-19. This issue concerns WikiProject Medicine and the focus of that project right now is COVID-19. The primary outcome of this issue being discussed anywhere will be distraction from developing COVID-19 content.....I thank you for your time--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(With regard to Colin's indication ...I agree w/ Doc James, it should be checked in my edits that 1. I have on several occasions "agree w/ WAID [WhatAmIDoing]" (on other articles/matters) , 2. as well as many other editors...I don't/never will write a "wall of text", I usually keep it simple, 3. and most important I don't always agree w/ Doc James, therefore I do not support[36]/do not comment on the article/matter whatever it might be, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by RexxS[edit]

I was involved in a lot of the discussion and prior to the RfC, and had several unpleasant arguments with Colin as usual. I wasn't happy with the leading nature of the RfC questions, which invited a particular conclusion. However, the RfC started when I was busy with other things, and by the time I had time to look at the RfC, I found that Colin was bludgeoning editors who opposed his proposal as usual, and I didn't feel I had the time for the usual back-and-forth that everybody who disagrees with Colin has to go through. I see that the RfC concluded with 40 comments from Colin.

As for the immediate complaint, like many other medical editors, I think that the cost of a drug (or range of costs) is an encyclopedic fact. The reason that WP:NOT mentions prices is to avoid the encyclopedia being turned into a series of adverts where "Acme widgets at $4.95" are being touted as cheaper than "Vanilla widgets at $5.00". It is not meant as a weapon to suppress valid reader interest in what drugs might actually cost to purchase, either wholesale or retail. Of course, we need quality sources to support any factual claim in an encyclopedia, but once we have prices being discussed in reliable independent sources, we should be able to incorporate those discussions into Wikipedia.

The second bullet point in the close of the RfC states

There is no consensus on whether drug prices should be included in articles at all. Where secondary sources discuss pricing extensively (insulin being a frequently cited example), that information may be worth including in the article; where there is little discussion of pricing in secondary sources, it generally should not be included. Drugs which fall into the grey area between these extremes should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Where pricing information is included, claims should be sourced to reliable, secondary sources and not solely primary source data from price databases.

and that's where the contention continues. James and Colin have very different interpretations of "information may be worth including", "discussed on a case-by-case basis" and "should be sourced to reliable, secondary sources". The understanding of what those mean in particular cases needs to be established by consensus at affected articles, and any request for arbitration should not be undertaken until those consensuses have been established. You only have to look at Talk:Simvastatin to see how even innocuous statements like "Simvastatin is relatively low cost" are being challenged by editors wanting to remove all discussion of pricing. Those sort of content issues need to be resolved first.

Unless ArbCom want to rule on content and clarify in detail the meaning of the RfC closure, I contend that there's nothing behavioural that is ripe for arbitration at present. --RexxS (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Statement by Levivich[edit]

When a "coronavirus drug" is made, it will be sold around the world at different prices, and the disruption around pharmaceutical pricing will visit articles that have 1,000+ editors. It would be good to get ahead of it. A motion in lieu of a full case would reduce the demand on editor time. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 05:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I would ask the editors and admin who are more heavily involved than I about specific remedies, but options that come to mind are a sourcing restriction (perhaps enforcing the recent RFC result through a sourcing restriction, or passing a broader or narrower sourcing restriction), authorizing DS or other editing restrictions like 1RR, consensus required, or enforced BRD. Possibly suggesting another RFC. Possibly tbanning or otherwise sanctioning editors if there is clear evidence supporting it that wouldn't require a full case to analyze (I'm not sure if this is the case). Currently the community doesn't seem to have the tools available to it, or a process available to it, to resolve content disputes about drug pricing. Edit warring is obviously not the answer, but RFCs don't appear to be resolving the disruption either. For example, does disputed price content stay in or out of the article while an RFC runs? (In per WP:SILENCE, or out per WP:ONUS, or second mover advantage per WP:BRD?) We have no answer to this, hence the edit warring at the articles mentioned in the report. Arbcom can't decide the content dispute but it might be able to quickly lay down some ground rules for this area of conflict. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 14:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, regarding "we don't having time for this because of COVID-19", given the edit warring and talk page walls of text surrounding pricing disputes just in the last week, it's obvious that editors do have the time for this, or that it's already distracting from COVID-19 editing. Resolving this will free up editor time, not waste it. It will also free up admin time so they can focus on mopping up at COVID-19 articles instead of mopping up pricing disputes. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 14:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf[edit]

Just a note that QuackGuru is listed as a party to this case but they are currently in the middle of a 3-month arbitration enforcement block (expires 19 May) and so will not be able to participate in this request. The AE block was related to conduct in the e-cigs topic area [37] and does not at first glance appear to be related to this dispute. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above relates to the narrow "medical pricing" dispute. QG's conduct in the e-cigs area might be relevant if an accepted case has a wider scope. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding DGG, I agree with Outriggr that SandyGeorgia's request for recusal is a reasonable one and encourage DGG to reconsider his decision. Being a member of the arbitration committee, an on-wiki group whose goals are unrelated to the specifics of Wikipedia content is a very different matter to being a member of a formal off-wiki organisation whose purpose is directly related to the content of Wikipedia articles at the centre of this dispute. Whatever DGG's views about that organisation, its members or its goals it is important that there be no appearance of a conflict of interest. When I was an arbitrator I recused on matters where Wikimedia UK was tangentially related because of my involvement with that organisation, even though both I and WMUK were much less closely related to the dispute than is the case here. I view this as being the same principle. Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Natureium[edit]

My assumption when I first saw this was that there would be calls for delaying due to coronavirus efforts involving WPMED. However, if there's time to edit war on the involved (non-COVID related) articles, surely there's time for this. Natureium (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG[edit]

This dispute involves experienced and highly valued contributors who have a fundamental disagreement over what constitutes encyclopaedic coverage of a significant but specific (and geographically variable) facet of content.

What it needs is for someone to definitively rule one way or the other. If the RfC is taken as being that determination then I guess we can move to enforcement but I suspect what will actually happen is that the the same parties will try to litigate the content issue through Arbitration. I think the claim of COVID-19 as a reason to delay is spurious (though at least one party is an ER doctor), the parties appear still to have plenty of time for edit warring.

Kudos to Barkeep for trying to fix this festering sore. Guy (help!) 17:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish[edit]

I fear that I will regret making this statement. I've been trying to retire from Wikipedia because of my unhappiness over this very issue, and I would likely not say anything here had I not just made a few Workshop comments in another unrelated case. To my recollection, I've never done any editing about prices on med pages. But I had commented at the ANI discussion that Barkeep links to in his statement, and having done that, I tried to help design the RfC that is also linked to above. And what happened there made me decide that it would be in everyone's best interests for me to separate myself from Wikipedia, and that's what I really want to do. You should decline this case request. You should also expect that a case will in fact be needed a few months from now. The problem is that the community decided at ANI that there should be an RfC that would settle the question of whether or not to have prices on med pages – but the RfC that resulted ended in "no consensus" about the central question. So here you have some editors interpreting the RfC results to mean one thing, and other editors interpreting it to mean the opposite. Before you will be able to evaluate any conduct issues, the community will need to figure out the content issue. (Otherwise, what Guy predicts just above, with parties trying to litigate content through the case, is exactly what will happen.) ArbCom clearly cannot parse "no consensus" into a consensus. So the community needs to try again, to get a consensus where a consensus did not emerge so far. It's very possible to do that, but it will require an RfC that is designed to do so (and please leave me out of it). There will be three possible outcomes: (1) the community will find a consensus that is generally agreed upon, and the dispute will resolve itself, (2) there will be a consensus, but some editors refuse to abide by it, in which case ArbCom will need to act, or (3) editors will not cooperate in creating the RfC, and ArbCom will need to act on that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to caution against approaching this case as though the recent RfC yielded a sufficient consensus to fault editors for interpreting it differently. It was very clear during the RfC drafting that many of the editors doing the drafting intended this RfC to be the first of two RfCs, and that it would not resolve the overall issue,1 just start the process of resolving an array of issues, and that there was disagreement about whether having more than one RfC was a good idea: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. (And, just now, [43], [44].) And the RfC page actually says that it "is likely that there will be at least one more RFC related to this subject area." --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1Adding: "overall issue" includes whether or not Doc James' approach has consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Among the many things that sadden and discourage me, I'm seeing on this page that allegedly Doc James singlehandedly made edits that are supported by almost no one else – and that other named parties are being added because they supported Doc James. So he acted unilaterally with support from multiple others? If I count up the editors on each "side", the numbers are approximately equal. Nobody here has had a consensus, and there has never really been a consensus to be edited against. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem[edit]

I am commenting only in that I was involved in earlier discussions at WT:NOT related to when pricing information in general (see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 57#Clarification requested for product pricing (Sales catalogues)) where I tried to provide the way it was done from the tech industry (eg when the next iPhone or video game console goes on sale, a big deal will be made about pricing, and thus generally we have the sources to explain why we discuss pricing). I do understand the concerns around the drug pricing issue on both directions. I cannot comment on the behavior issues that have happened since and while Arbcom is not going to delegate on content issues, I do believe, should they see something in terms of unifying the approach, it would be helpful for the case to flesh that out too; as pointed out in a few previous comments, with eyes of the world on a cure for conoravirus, the cost of that cure will likely be of major interest so how to deal with pricing will be a factor. --Masem (t) 14:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iridescent[edit]

{I have never added or removed a drug price, get on fine AFAIK with all the participants, and have no horse in this race nor a preferred outcome.) This may look like a content dispute, but it isn't; it's a meta-issue over to what extent RFC results are binding, whether the spirit of RFC closures should be respected or whether it's only the exact wording which needs to be complied with, and on whether it constitutes disruptive editing to edit against consensus when one genuinely believes the consensus is wrong. As such, it's exactly the kind of thing where arbitration—in both the WikiSpeak and the everyone-else-in-the-world senses of the term—is going to be the best solution. As a general aside, speaking as the closer of the "Religion in biographical infoboxes" RFC (which covered the intersection of the three most toxic topics on the 'pedia), I can confirm that it is possible for all the participants to abide by the result of an RFC closure, even the people with strong personalities who genuinely believe that the closure was the wrong conclusion. ‑ Iridescent 15:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WereSpielChequers[edit]

As a Brit I really don't have skin in this game, there aren't many areas of life where we can be so smug. But I can appreciate that for our readers in large parts of the World it is really useful information to know whether a drug is worth an international trip to buy more cheaply. However, as others have pointed out, this really really isn't the time for us to distract our medical editors with an Arbcom case. I suggest that the committee accept the case, but defer it for at least a few months. ϢereSpielChequers 18:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul August[edit]

Please accept. Now more than ever it is important to get control of this issue. I am sure that some of the involved editors, in the belief that they know best, are willing to do whatever it takes to do what they feel they know to be right, consensus/policy be damned. That needs to be stopped. Paul August ☎ 18:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Literaturegeek[edit]

I am uninvolved in this matter, I did not comment on the RfC or any discussion because I just, to be bluntly honest, did not really care much about whether drug pricing is mentioned or not in the lead. However, I did follow some of the arguments and as an outsider looking in I believe the dispute involves old ego battles and grudges between one set of editors versus another set as much as it involves a content dispute. With that said, I do not believe that ArbCom should proceed with a case at this juncture as I suspect that the best resolution is for further RfC’s to be held on areas where the original RfC did not find consensus or where loopholes and points of dispute exist. If follow up RfCs fail to resolve the dispute then at that point an ArbCom case should be held. Also the COVID-19 pandemic is further reason to stall the case given doctors are involved in this dispute, particularly Doc James who is an A&E consultant doctor. So one or possibly two follow up RfCs could resolve this dispute much quicker and more soundly than an ArbCom case which could worsen grudges, etc. The decision to hold a case now, during an acute phase of a pandemic, could actually cause real harm or even cost people’s lives if we switch medical editors and medical doctors attention away from COVID-19 and onto an ArbCom case, vote carefully. If an ArbCom case does proceed, I suggest that they conclude further RfCs be held on remaining points of dispute/uncertainty. Please consider striking votes to accept and hold off on a case.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wugapodes[edit]

I speak only for myself and only to provide information as a closer of the RfC that seems to have precipitated this. I echo Tryptofish who says It was very clear during the RfC drafting that many of the editors doing the drafting intended this RfC to be the first of two RfCs, and that it would not resolve the overall issue, and it was clear to me that the role of the closure was to provide direction for a future RfC, not definitively decide this point once and for all. I also agree with Literaturegeek's assessment that I believe the dispute involves old ego battles and grudges between one set of editors versus another set as much as it involves a content dispute. From reading through the RfC, it is clear that some editors have more skin in the game than others, and it seems that the discussion has polarized into camps with few willing to compromise. This polarization is the heart of the no consensus conclusion; I doubt further discussion will clarify the point because the CommunityDoesNotAgree and any community solution will be frustrated by the sizeable opposition on either side. Even if we were to phrase the close in a completely unambiguous and definitive way as WhatamIdoing suggests, it will not work in practice. Our policies are descriptive, not prescriptive, and what will occur (and to some degree already has) is that those on one side will frustrate attempts by the other to enforce a policy that does not actually have consensus of the community.

Statement by Robert McClenon[edit]

I see that ArbCom is about to accept this case, and I agree that the case should be accepted, with no particular assumptions as to the schedule of decision. ArbCom should usually accept a case when there are arguments both to accept and to decline. There have been more issues where the decision by ArbCom not to accept a case, which might have then had to be accepted later, has been a mistake, than cases where accepting the case was a mistake. ArbCom can always postpone or dismiss a case (and is currently considering a case that was postponed for years). If quick action turns out to be needed, it will be better to have the case open than to have to open it. If the case has to be kept in process for months due to the pandemic, there is no harm in opening it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall[edit]

I was at most peripherally involved with the subject RFC, except for making one edit as a participant. If Arbcom accepts the case narrowly, focused on this specific matter, then I shall keep quiet. But if Arbcom accepts the case as conduct in RFCs involving medicine, then I will wish to introduce some diffs.

There is potentially scope to discuss RFCs in general: how binding are they? How prescriptive can a closing statement be, which is another way of asking, how much authority attaches to the closer? The community could use some direction on that, too.—S Marshall T/C 11:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Outriggr[edit]

I have followed the talk page of Wikiproject Medicine for some time, if not generally participated in it. (The same can be said for pages like this. ;) The influence of organized entities outside the English Wikipedia itself has been a continuing subject of tension on the talk page of Wikiproject Medicine. For this reason, I find SandyGeorgia's request that an arbitrator recuse—an arbitrator who is listed as a current member of such an external organization (one formal enough to be a tax exempt [45]) related to Wikipedia medical content—to be completely reasonable. A hypothetical active member of that organization would be reasonably expected to interpret claims about the behavior of other members of that organization—which one or more parties to this case are also members of—differently than a neutral party. I don't know if DGG is a particularly involved member, but it shouldn't matter. As always, it is about avoiding even the appearance or possibility of a conflict of interest. Outriggr (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC) it[reply]

Statement by Amakuru[edit]

I don't have a strong opinion on the rights and wrongs of the case itself right now, but I'm just going to echo what Outriggr has said above, and Thryduulf and SandyGeorgia too. DGG needs to recuse from this case, as being a member of a foundation closely related to the matter under consideration certainly looks like a conflict of interest, even if DGG feels it isn't. And in the interests of fairness to all participants, avoiding the possibility of COI is paramount here even if ultimately it wouldn't have transpired. I also agree with SandyGeorgia that the case should be heard now, not at some unspecified point in the future after COVID-19 dies down. The issues concerned are affecting day-to-day editing right now.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Reciprocater[edit]

  • MOS:LEAD: Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Nevertheless if drug prices are added to the lead for the sake of basic human rights of the ill, poor and making our society more equal, which prevents Capitalism gains what Democracy loses. I strongly recommend that Wikipedia make the most of its noble discretion to act in utmost good faith and maximize its positive influence on the world in order to seek a win-win for both sides. --Reciprocater (Talk) 11:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decision[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (8/0/0)[edit]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Before reaching the substance of the request, is this the best timing given the obvious other issues currently preoccupying editors of medical articles? Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to confirm that I understand the question at issue: the RfC seems to have settled that prices were not to be included in the lede nor, usually, in the infobox. It left unresolved the question of whether they should be covered in the article, or to what extent. The recent disputes have been over that issue. Are we being asked to resolve that?--because I cannot see how that's within our scope. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I would also like it to be made clearer exactly what we are being asked to decide, we certainly aren't going to start meddling with content. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept as Medicine. We can't directly settle the content dispute of course, but there are clearly also long-running conduct disputes here, and problems like how to edit in the absence of consensus are subject to relevant conduct policies. A broader scope looking at conduct around the medicine topic, and especially WP:MED, seems appropriate, and might help divert the focus from a specific content dispute. @Barkeep49: I think you (or others) can feel free to add more involved parties directly to the case request. – Joe (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The timing is not great, but unfortunately I think if we postpone until the COVID crisis is over, we will be essentially postponing indefinitely. We can always extend the usual deadlines if that makes things easier for the parties. – Joe (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept - agree arbcom does not rule on content, but what we have here is a protracted problem area with numerous attempts at resolution. What we do review and sanction is behaviour that stymies attempts at consensus-building. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Maxim(talk) 14:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to have a broad scope, we may need to delay it at least a month in order not to burden editors involved with the current emergency -- we might consider a preliminary injunction DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept per Cas. Katietalk 13:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept as Medicine, particularly to look at the broader conduct issues that may be getting in the way of consensus-building throughout the medicine topic area. As far as timing goes I think we should start the case now, with the understanding that if we need to draw things out to accommodate people's busy schedules we have the ability to do so. – bradv🍁 15:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept — while it does look like further consensus-building would be helpful to solve the content issues, there appears to be enough friction interrupting that meriting a case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. I'm reasonably convinced that there is a problem here that needs our intervention to resolve it, but also open to the idea that we might not need a full case and we may be able to do something by motion that would be effective. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. I'm certainly willing to be flexible with timing wrt the COVID-19 situation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still result in sanctions.

Passed 8 to 0 at 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality and conflicts of interest[edit]

2) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings, all editors must strive to ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies.

Passed 8 to 0 at 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground[edit]

3) Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges or insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Editors should approach issues intelligently and engage in polite discussion. Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other when they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimise the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. Interaction bans may be used to force editors to do so.

Passed 8 to 0 at 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Sanctions and circumstances[edit]

4) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Passed 8 to 0 at 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Tendentious editing[edit]

5) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive editing that frustrates proper editorial processes or discussions may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases, they may be banned from the site.

Passed 8 to 0 at 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Fait accompli[edit]

6) Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

Passed 8 to 0 at 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Criticism and casting aspersions[edit]

7) An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalised, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forum.

Passed 8 to 0 at 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Existing policy on pricing[edit]

8) The Wikipedia policy What Wikipedia is not includes, "an article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention [...] Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product from different vendors." The policy on pricing has existed in almost its exact wording for a decade.[46]

Passed 8 to 0 at 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Clarity of consensus[edit]

9) Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. In most cases, consensus is an implicit process, where undisputed edits—either in article or project space—are assumed to have consensus. In cases where consensus is unclear, extra care must be taken to avoid stirring up unnecessary conflict. From both a broad behavioral and content standpoint, there exist situations on Wikipedia where it preferable to be cautious and seek consensus prior to an edit instead of editing boldly as is common in uncontroversial areas of the project.

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Levels of consensus[edit]

10) Local consensus among a limited group of editors, such as through a Wikiproject or talk page discussion, does not override wider community consensus. Advice pages that have not been accepted as a policy or guideline should be treated as essays.

Passed 8 to 0 at 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

11) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Passed 8 to 0 at 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) The locus of this dispute centres on medical articles. While the case was filed following a dispute related to the insertion of pharmaceutical drug prices into article leads and infoboxes, there exists a variety of long-standing or historical disputes between multiple editors highly active on medical articles, which form a particularly sensitive topic on Wikipedia. Not unlike editing biographies of living people, editing medical articles brings forth a particular responsibility to exercise the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.

Passed 8 to 0 at 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Manual of Style: Medicine-related articles and pharmaceutical drug prices[edit]

2) A manual of style for medicine-related articles was started in 2006, and accepted as a guideline in 2007. Discussions about changes to the manual's prescriptions for the inclusion or exclusion of pharmaceutical drug prices have become increasingly acrimonious. A recent RfC was closed as no consensus on the blanket inclusion of pharmaceutical drug prices in articles.[47]

Passed 6 to 0 at 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Unclear consensus of requests for comment is not novel[edit]

3) The lack of clear consensus produces an untenable situation where any article edits and subsequent discussions in this topic area readily devolve into further rancorous disputes that fail to yield consensus. Such situations are not unique to medicine articles; for example, the Arbitration Committee heard a case on infoboxes in 2013 where unclear consensus on the inclusion or exclusion of infoboxes in article resulted in similar disputes.

Passed 6 to 1 with 1 abstention at 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

CFCF[edit]

4) CFCF (talk · contribs) has degraded discussions with unsupported accusations.[48] They were previously warned as part of an arbitration case.[49] CFCF has apologized for their behavior in regards to the scope of this case.

Passed 8 to 0 at 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Colin[edit]

5) Colin (talk · contribs) has degraded discussions by baseless accusations of bad faith and needless antagonism, e.g. [50][51][52]

Passed 4 to 1 with 2 abstentions at 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Doc James[edit]

6) Doc James (talk · contribs) has repeatedly edit-warred[53][54] to add or retain pricing information in articles, despite repeated RfCs that closed with no consensus for blanket inclusion.[55][56][57] Their low usage of edit summaries has contributed to problems in collaborative editing.[58][59] They were previously the subject of an editing restriction as the result of an arbitration case.[60]

Passed 8 to 0 at 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

QuackGuru[edit]

7) QuackGuru (talk · contribs) has acted disruptively and participated in edit wars regarding drug pricing,[61][62] They have previously been topic-banned by the community[63] and were warned as the result of an arbitration case,[64] for which they were later blocked.[65]

Passed 8 to 0 at 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Contentious topic designation[edit]

Superseded version
Former title: "Standard discretionary sanctions".
Shortcuts

2) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. Any uninvolved administrator may apply sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action to users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

Passed 7 to 1 at 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Superseded by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Rescinded by motion

2) All discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles, are designated as a contentious topic.

Amended by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Rescinded by motion at 03:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

CFCF reminded[edit]

3) CFCF is reminded to avoid casting aspersions and similar conduct in the future.

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Doc James restricted[edit]

5) Doc James is prohibited from making any edits relating to pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing in the article namespace.

Passed 8 to 0 at 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

QuackGuru topic banned[edit]

6) QuackGuru is indefinitely topic-banned from articles relating to medicine, broadly construed.

Passed 8 to 0 at 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Amendments[edit]

Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)[edit]

As part of the 2022 adoption of the contentious topics procedure, the Arbitration Committee adopted the following motion to re-designate existing discretionary sanctions remedies as contentious topic designations.

21) Each reference to the prior discretionary sanctions procedure shall be treated as a reference to the contentious topics procedure. The arbitration clerks are directed to amend all existing remedies authorizing discretionary sanctions to instead designate contentious topics.

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Motion: Removal of Unused Contentious Topics, Medicine (October 2023)[edit]

Remedy 2 of Medicine ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures.

Passed 7 to 0 with 2 abstentions by motion at 03:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Enforcement log[edit]

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine

Leave a Reply