Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Mikec85 (talk | contribs)
47 edits
Line 233: Line 233:


;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greg_Lindberg#Paid_editor_on_this_page
* Link 1
* Link 2
* Link 2


Revision as of 03:30, 2 April 2020

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Medical pricing

Initiated by Barkeep49 (talk) at 03:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Adding
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Barkeep49

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

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

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 while 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 this 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 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 initially 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... Some disagree with the position of many of us 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."

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 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.

Statement by QuackGuru

Statement by SandyGeorgia

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,[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] 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 [14] versus external (non-en.Wikipedia) projects, that use leads only of medical articles, and expect them to be written differently than Wikipedia policy supports.[15] 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.[16][17] 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[18][19] counting on RFC !voting whenever pushback occurs, and furthering inaccurate representations[20] [21] of others' behavior (example, the misrepresented pinging description).

Granting "exceptional"[22] 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 [23] of a useful RFC. [24] James disregarded the community-wide RFC,[25] 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. 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, often backed in editwarring by QuackGuru and Ozzie10aaaa, sometimes by Jytdog), and we should have been examining that behavior.[26][27][28][29] 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]

Statement by Seraphimblade

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

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

Statement by Avicenno

Statement by bluerasberry

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

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]

Statement by Hipal/Ronz

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.[31] --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 Jytdog2

Statement by Ozzie10aaaa

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]

Statement by RexxS

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]

Statement by Levivich

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

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 [32] 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]

Statement by Natureium

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

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

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: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. (And, just now, [38], [39].) 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]

Statement by Masem

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

{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

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

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

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

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 {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Medical pricing: Clerk notes

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

Medical pricing: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/0/0>

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]

Editors to "Greg Lindberg" have been subjective and baseless in many of their postings

Initiated by Mikec85 (talk) at 03:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Mikec85

Replace this comment with your statement.

Statement by @Smallbones

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Editors to "Greg Lindberg" have been subjective and baseless in many of their postings: Clerk notes

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

Editors to "Greg Lindberg" have been subjective and baseless in many of their postings: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=948632776&oldid=948632705&title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Leave a Reply