Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed decision

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)

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

PD decision posting update

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just to keep people in the loop, I've pushed back the PD posting just so more arbs can get a look at things before we post. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

In the old ancient times, the proposed decision was a proposition, followed by a public discussion between arbitrators. But the times, they are a changing. Aren't they ? Pldx1 (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comments by Barkeep49

On the 2020 RfC

The fact that ArbCom seems to think no consensus was achieved in the 2020 RfC is, I think, wrong on the merits and disappointing to me personally. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• @KrakatoaKatie: according to this decision there is no consensus for Doc James to "not hear". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• No matter what the 2020 RfC found I will admit, given my investment as an uninvolved administrator, to wanting to see that consensus implemented. This is why trying to find consensus about the RfC on the front end was important to me in that role. Consensus on the front end increased the likelihood people would be willing to accept its results afterwards.
  It seems to me, as written, this decision suggests the 2020 RfC achieved no consensus, which again I don't think is correct factually and could quote evidence if it would be helpful to the arbs. I speculate that it seems to have been written this way by the drafters to make the proposed moratorium process easier to implement. I am in favor of that moratorium process broadly speaking but think trading an established mechanism for implementing consensus (RfC) for one that is not only untried but unclear about how to determine when consensus has been found (moratorium process) is not a positive trade.
  Bradv in regards to your point that The idea behind a big multi-part RfC, such as the 2020 drug pricing RfC, is to achieve at least partial consensus, which should then be accepted as resolved even by those editors who disagree with it. That partial consensus then gets implemented so that the outstanding items can be worked out. I am curious how as a drafter you considered reflecting the consensus that was achieved in the 2020 RfC and whether any mechanisms in the proposed moratorium process were considered as ways to know when consensus had been achieved. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Barkeep49, honestly I didn't do as much of the drafting as I would have liked. The heavy lifting was all done by the other two named drafters, so I can't really reflect on what went into drawing up the moratorium. I am curious how this would work with implementing general consensus, and I've commented as such on the remedy. – bradv🍁 00:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Other comments

DGG is correct that the effective policy on Wikipedia is what is done not what is written but to the extent that prices is mentioned in policy is a discussion for WP:NOT; to the extent that it's relevant here is how fait accompli editing intersects with that idea. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall:, Quack was unblocked so they could participate in this case. They have not done so, as is their prerogative, but they did have an option to participate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Maxim: Yes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The revised wording of the DS seems much improved based on the feedback here (I had been noodling such language myself this morning and so I am glad to see Bradv beat me to it). It feels like the decision is in a state where arbs could vote to close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: there is no set amount of time you have, but I would suggest you hurry. The arbitrators seem to be converging on consensus and the first vote to close has been cast. 24 hours after the 4th or 5th vote to close is cast (I won't bore you with why it could be 4 or 5 votes) the case is closed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Re:RexxS, I have written my thoughts about the difficulties of applying bludgeon as though it is a behavioral guideline/policy rather than an essay so I won't repeat those. But I will say that the discussion here has seemed quite productive; in part because of the discussion here the votes in this decision have rather dramatically changed. Thus it is hard for me to say that Colin's contributions here are disruptive even if they are, by text added, a substantial percentage of the bytes of this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Going to formally ping RexxS as I'm not sure if he's choosing not to respond to this (obviously fine and no response necessary) or hasn't seen it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Ethosuximide RfC

I declined when pinged to the closer's talk page give my thoughts on this close (which I am now reconsidering). I included this RfC in evidence but I do not think what Colin is talking about is something that can be dealt with by Arbcom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CFCF

This is the worst possible outcome of this case. For SandyGeorgia to be so vindicated as to not even be named in the proposed decision is incompatible with everything I take Wikipedia to stand for.

That the committee finds my actions to be of similar severity to Colin’s, and worse than those of SandyGeorgia’s, leaves me with no other option than to formally request an indefinite site-ban. I can not in good conscience continue to contribute to a project which principles so deviate from my own, and can not let it be taken that I accept the committee’s findings of fact or proposed remedies. CFCF (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, you've now said as much, so I don't think it will be taken that you accept it. But I would ask you to just pause for a moment and look at what we're saying here, which is simply not to make unsupported accusations, which you did actually seem to have accepted. You aren't even being directly sanctioned, it's just a reminder. We didn't issue a similar remonder to Sandy because we didn't see evidence she did the same thing. To me the real "meat" of this cases is the more general attempts to curb the entire problem, and those sanctions, if and when they are enacted, will apply equally to everyone involved. There's no reason to ask for a site ban, and no reason to issue one. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Literaturegeek

The problem is ArbCom, for reasons lost on me, refuse to even admonish, by name, never mind sanction the most toxic and disruptive of behaviours. The behaviours I refer to are WP:BLUDGEON, WP:HARASS, and WP:DISRUPT. Colin literally has been at war with WP MED editors, but he has done so by very determined CIVIL POV pushing via making multi-hundreds of very long repetitive posts that would try the patience of a saint (see his contributions). His frequent posts to WP MED PROJECT are literally almost 100 percent negative, when I see his name on WP MED Project I know it will certainly be negative and combative, but yet usually civil or borderline civil and thus ArbCom doesn’t care. Colin’s behaviour can destroy collaborative projects because you can wage civil war but yet be untouchable and beyond even criticism, so long as you are civil. Why is there no finding of fact that Colin has treated WP Med Project as a battleground, is it because his weapon of mass disruption is civil POV pushing with constant multi-years-long negative bludgeoning? Being 100 percent negative repeatedly and regularly in all communications to a group of people in any social situation, on or offline, would cause conflict but Colin has been around a long time and knows the system. This outcome is predictable. The question is why does ArbCom not admonish toxic negative antisocial anti-collaborative bludgeoning behaviour occurring over a period of years? To me ArbCom are admonishing Colin for about 2 or 3 percent of his wrongdoing and ignoring the 97 or 98 percent of his negative behaviour. Now Colin will strut about WP MED project with the knowledge he can continue bludgeoning behaviour and dominate his opponents. No wonder CFCF is making the decision to leave WP, hopefully he will calm down and reconsider. Colin is driving medical editors away, not Doc James or anyone else. What this proposed set of decisions does is empower Colin and disempower Doc James; at least resolve both problems rather than create a victor and leave the main problem unresolved. I worded my evidence in such a way that I wanted to retain Colin’s intellectual important viewpoints but with the hope his civil battleground conduct could be stopped or at least greatly restrained; I never wanted to see Colin topic banned, while part of me dislikes his behaviour another part of me likes and values him, but this proposed outcome is unacceptable.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Arbs: @Beeblebrox:, @Bradv:, @David Fuchs:, @KrakatoaKatie:, @Joe Roe:, @Maxim:, @Mkdw:, @Newyorkbrad:, @SoWhy:, @Worm That Turned:, am I crazy in thinking that it is weird that you guys are voting to close this case when only one more vote is needed for this finding of fact on Colin to pass: wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed_decision#Colin ?? Also, it seems very unfair that CFCF has a finding against him and is advised in relation to this finding but Colin doesn’t. Clearly the current remedy of an admonishment with the wording including the word “needlessly” was felt to be too harsh, so why not have a 4a remedy proposed for Colin where he is advised against being uncivil and maybe advised also about bludgeoning talk pages? Some of the Arbs voting to close have voted against the remedy against Colin so it does look a bit biased if I am honest. All other ArbCom cases I have ever followed did not close until a finding or remedy could no longer pass or fail. For Colin not to even be advised to improve some of his conduct is going to leave many people — who were greatly stressed over a period of years by Colin’s battleground behaviour — feeling this case has been rushed through with a rushed result and improper rushed close and not treated fairly by ArbCom. Please rethink this close and proposed remedy.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I am recused in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I apologise, thanks NYB.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Literaturegeek: It's now passing. – Joe (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Colin

• On PP2 (Neutrality and conflicts of interest), WP:WEIGHT doesn't say "give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source". It isn't singular and we don't judge some sources as carrying more weight than others (at least, on this matter). The policy is "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". The point is that to determine weight, one must be familiar with the body of literature, reliable sources on the topic, and give the same prominence/depth/etc as they do. So, I think as currently worded, this is likely to be misunderstood. I also think Wikipedia:Advocacy is a better wikilink for "Advocacy" than Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.

• On PP8 (Existing policy on pricing), please note my and Sandy's comments on this text at the workshop. I'm disappointed that hasn't been rectified, with no reason given.

• On FoF2 (Manual of Style...), the description of the RFC result seems oddly truncated. "blanket inclusion of pharmaceutical drug prices in articles" wasn't even the proposal. Shouldn't it describe the proposal and findings, which was that certain drug-database sourced prices were judged by the community and failed on multiple aspects of policy.

• On PR1 (topic moratorium) I think there is a conflict here with the previous and any future RFCs, conflict with WP:ONUS, and conflict with the statements on Fait accompli: "It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change." There was never consensus to add the prices; they were added anyway; and now it requires a discussion per-article to remove them even if an RFC found most of them break several policies. There are anywhere up to 1500 prices, all with more-or-less the same problems.

I think this moratorium confuses two parts of the drug debate. The first is whether the price on this article meets notability requirements of WP:NOTPRICES. The recent RFC did not find a consensus for blanket addition of prices, but nor did it seek one. This aspect should indeed be discused per-article, using multiple sources from the last few years per long established policy. But the RFC did find that many existing database-sourced prices failed fundamental policies on verifiability and original research and misuse of primary sources. I'd much rather see the community find agreement on that, to ratify and clarify the RFC findings, and then to agree to enact those findings across multiple articles. It just isn't right to force the community to debate per article whether inventing a treatment cost is original research or not, or whether or not a primary source database record constitutes "extensive commentary in mainstream media": that matter has already been discussed and concluded.

We also seem to need a new general RFC on how we should handle adjective-based prices (e.g. "low cost" or "widely affordable"). I very very much do not want to see that discussed on the talk page of one drug. And it needs a proper discussion of the issues, not a "Should we include adjective-based prices in the lead of drug articles? Vote now." This moratorium will not encourage such. -- Colin°^Talk 20:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I note DGG's comments below. In regard to his P8 (Pricing), I strongly disagree and don't think it is Arb's job to invent novel content policy text, pass comment on what policy does not say, nor, for that matter, to make statements that seem to suggest written policy should be ignored.

I think the arbs have had a very difficult case here and would have required the wisdom of Solomon to come up with a solution that everyone thought was fair and would obviously work. I am pleased, for example, that (so far) nobody has put editors into "sides".

Wrt criticism, I can only say that I will take on board what is said, try to learn from it, and resolve to be better in future. I don't think it is my place to comment here on the fairness (absolute or relative to others, or lack) of criticism/sanctions of any editor, including myself -- I said my bit earlier in the case. And on that matter, I do apologise to the arbs for my part in giving you so much to read. -- Colin°^Talk 21:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to echo the concerns by Barkeep49, User:Seraphimblade, etc that the proposed procedure for the moratorium replaces a well used wiki general-community-discussion-consensus-agreement approach to content disputes, with a straw poll per article on proposed article text (remove/keep, vote now!). That to me is the worst outcome, easily gamed and we all know voting does not encourage consensus to form. Note Barkeep's opening statement: "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.". What this moratorium procedure proposes (along with the unhelpful summary of the RFC findings that doesn't acknowledge what the RFC is on or what it achieved consensus on) actually encourages such non-consensual behaviour. What incentive is there, for editors happy with the status quo, to engage in seeking consensus, vs just "Keep per James" votes? After winning one on a random drug article, the vote will be forever "Keep per Obscurostatin RFC". I also share some of isaacl's concerns that WP:NHC will not be followed, and simply heads counted. The existing few drug-article poll RFCs are all terrible, and not a pattern to be encouraged or repeated.

I am encouraged that Bradv is considering alternatives. Possibly a short moratorium (without the novel per-article-vote procedure) will be useful to prevent hot-headed editing and edit wars. But there needs to be a path for the community to be encouraged to accept existing consensus achieved over the last six months (!) and develop new general consensuses that can be applied across articles. Bradv, I see your Consensus Required proposal. Can you clarify wrt BRD which edit is which? James boldly adding the drug price (albeit years ago) without consensus? WhatamIdoing or Colin timidly reverting this by removing one price after several months of discussion and a huge RFC? James reverting WhatamIdoing/Colin (and adding more prices while he's at it)? If the "removed price per RFC" is regarded as the BOLD move, and James's restoration of his text regarded as the "Revert" move, then we return the the problem of WP:ONUS I raised in the workshop. That (and the proposed moratorium procedure) would enforce a huge overhead and disadvantage on anyone disputing article text. Hope you can clarify. -- Colin°^Talk 07:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Colin, I would suggest that any edit made in the absence of a local discussion or after a discussion has achieved consensus would be considered a "bold" edit. If reverted, the onus would be on the person making the reverted edit to achieve consensus in an advertised local discussion. I realize that this means that those edits that implement a global consensus may be challenged and need to be discussed individually, but I don't think that's an insurmountable problem, for two reasons:

1. implementing the global consensus is a manual process, as it's rarely as simple as just removing a word;
2. editors who persist in disrupting this process can be topic banned by an uninvolved administrator.

I realize there may be simpler solutions, but any that I can think of involve declaring a clear winner in the underlying dispute, which would neither be possible nor appropriate. – bradv🍁 12:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Bradv I can see how this might work if the bold edit was someone adding a new drug price (though if James is banned from that, and QuackGuru banned from medicine, well that doesn't AFAIK leave anyone else who has ever added disputed drug prices). But if I interpret you correctly, then wrt removing prices that fail to meet recent RFC findings, then this seems no better or different to the moratorium: you are requiring that in addition to any RFC consensus, I am also required to achieve a local consensus.

I note, with some disappointment, that some keep mentioning the "remove from the lead" aspect of the RFC, which even James accepts, and neglecting the other RFC results, specifically those concerning prices sourced solely to drug price databases. It was an RFC on prices sourced to drug price databases, you know! The "moratorium" text suggests that consensus does not exist at all and needs to be argued afresh. I can only say that many involved in that RFC would be utterly disillusioned to find that months of debate and consensus achievement were not only ignored but explicitly rejected by arbcom, and everyone forced to debate all 1500 prices one by one in endless polls.

For an example, Ethosuximide had 30 words on prices and two price figures, both sourced to the drug databases that the RFC found was unacceptable. Post RFC, after literally minutes of research on Google, it now has 150 words on prices over three paragraphs and six prices along with a new claim in the lead and body that "As of 2008 it was generally affordable in most areas of the world" (sourced to a text from 2004). There is an RFC on that new text, which showed fundamental problems with that claim, but discussion has stalled. I suspect some admin will close it as "no consensus". Am I to be encouraged to post six RFCs on each of the prices in that article? It will take me longer just to post each RFC than it did for James to Google Books for "Ethosuximide low cost" and add it. I'm really not seeing how pushing this problem towards "local consensus straw poll" is anything other than a very backward step. There's no opportunity for the community to agree, for example, "Yes, that RFC really did find that all the prices sourced solely to the MSH price database are not acceptable and should be removed". -- Colin°^Talk 13:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Colin, I'm not sure how it would be possible to fix every article without local consensus. Even if there were a rock-solid global consensus that all drug pricing should be eliminated, that would still require working out on every page, and it's possible that such edits would get reverted and need to be discussed. We certainly don't have a consensus that strong, even with all the progress that has been made so far. I have opposed the first remedy as it in my estimation fails to acknowledge that the MEDMOS2020 RfC achieved anything at all, and it fails to allow for further progress on the central issues. However, the part about having a central noticeboard identifying current areas of dispute is solid, and I have built on that in my proposal 1a. That should help, not hinder, both the local and global consensus-building processes. Does that make sense? – bradv🍁 13:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Bradv, nobody is campaigning "that all drug pricing should be eliminated". But we did have some specific findings about prices sourced solely to drug price databases, and those findings don't allow for per-article exceptions: they fail several non-price-related policies and it doesn't matter if they are in the lead or in a drug with notable price, they just all fail in the same way. So actually I was optimistic that they could be dealt with quite straightforwardly. The Arbcom moratorium statement suggests they are hoping the community will straw-poll-by-straw-poll find a consensus on whether/when to include prices at all, but then evidence suggests repeated RFCs have merely re-affirmed WP:NOTPRICE, which does indeed require per-article consensus on the extraordinary notability of this particular price, within the constraint that this is established by sourced commentary in mainstream media, rather than advocacy voting by Wikipedians. Please read the workshop at "Locus of dispute (WhatamIdoing)" -- the workflow would be slightly different if certain restrictions are in place, but the gist is valid.

Perhaps I am being too pessimistic. Perhaps if the community is encouraged (by Arbcom) to come to an agreement on existing RFCs (possibly with some mediation?) and to open new RFCs on remaining issues (adjective prices, say), and then folk start carefully enacting those agreements but get per-article knock back by editors refusing to accept that consensus at all. It seems like we have been round that loop once already. Thanks for your "I have opposed..." words, and for considering alternatives. -- Colin°^Talk 14:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Colin, I'm not suggesting that anyone is saying "all drug pricing should be eliminated", it was just the most straightforward example I could find of a simple consensus that would still require local discussions to implement. The point is that achieving a global consensus on an issue like this is a messy process, as you well know, but so is implementing it. The idea that this can be accomplished globally without any local discussion is wishful thinking (not that there's anything wrong with that!). My hope is that by identifying and correcting the behaviour that is disrupting the process, we can calm the waters a bit and make some forward progress. This will happen in steps, but it starts with us getting back to basics on how to edit in a collaborative manner. – bradv🍁 14:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. I don't think any of us know the perfect solution. I hope Arbcom monitor for a while the immediate consequences of any restrictions/procedures to see if it is in fact working healthily or going pear shaped. Six months is way too long to wait before considering if it worked. This is a wiki, so we should be agile wrt changing processes if they aren't working. Based on James's comments below, I suspect it will go pear shaped fairly rapidly. -- Colin°^Talk 14:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Very disappointed to read the comments by James. He seems to still not accept the RFC results, still cherry picking which bits to quote, still ignoring the consensus about primary database-sourced prices. James cites the poll at Simvastatin to globally justify "non numerical prices in the lead" as though people were asked "Do you generally support non-numerical prices in the lead, no matter what the source, even if it is in some obscure dental research paper, and even if later editions of the textbook reject the 16-year-old edition cited, even if the source doesn't actually support the text, even if newer sources contradict the text....". And James wants another RFC on the MSH price guide, because he doesn't accept the findings of the first one.

This is why a am very concerned about the moratorium procedure: James will continue to launch poll-based RFCs that ask naively simple "Do you support this text" binary questions, which discourage examination of multiple policy or researching the literature. What we saw with WhatamIdoing's RFC was a thoughtful RFC that encouraged policy-based discussion and that actually did achieve its objectives. It was also remarkably civil. I fear we will continue to see these poll-RFCs spawn all over articles and editors wake up to a fresh poll with already 10 "Support per Doc James" votes from the members of the MEDF board. James's comments are once again pushing an WP:ADVOCACY agenda that cannot accept anything less than prices on every drug article.

The community spent over a month drafting the 2020 RFC. And spent over a month discussing it. And it did achieve consensus on its proposals. James wants that to be overturned with a series of poll-style RFCs he can make up of an evening by himself. The article-namespace topic ban is insufficient. I think James should be restricted from creating any more RFCs on drug prices. Any RFCs that establish general cross-article consensus must be developed by the community, not one individual seeking to win by counting votes in a poll they made up on the fly. Arbcom should encourage consensus forming discussion rather than adversarial polls with votes about Wikipedia being censored. -- Colin°^Talk 09:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Maxim, remedy 1 requires "editors must seek local consensus on a case-by-case basis prior to making non-trivial edits". There is no scope under this proposal to seek a wider consensus than "Is this specific article text '____' acceptable yes or no?". If we are to get out of this hole, we need the ability to agree broadly on existing general consensus RFC findings, and make new ones. And then to get agreement that consensus may be implemented broadly. There are 600 such articles with approx 1500 prices. There is no way each and every one of those prices needs debated with a vote. See Workshop: "Locus of dispute (WhatamIdoing)". -- Colin°^Talk 17:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree with User:Cthomas3. I somewhat agree with User:TonyBallioni on the part of any disinterested admin showing any inclination to want to enforce or supervise it. But I think those that have been engaged with the debate will read, understand and reject it for other reasons. They will reject it because you set too high a mountain to climb (600 articles 1500 prices, notice board and uninvolved neutral editor required for each one). And they will reject it because you are hurting us after the RFC agreed those prices sourced solely to a product price database are unacceptable. They will reject it by giving up and the prices will all remain. I plead with you to revise this procedure. At least provide some kind of get-out mechanism for the community to agree certain consensual edits on a larger scale than "per-case". Right now, I think we can get agreement about solely-database-sourced prices (they all go). We need to form an agreement on adjectival prices and I would rather that was done on a general RFC than the talk page of an obscure drug. Depending on how that one goes, there may be need for some rate-limiting procedure to see how editors comply with adding those prices. But your current "0E" (no edits, case-by-case explicit RFC consensus required first) rule will simply cause any editor interested in challenging the existing drug prices to give up: even if we had the patience and endurance, there simply aren't enough "uninvolved editor"s to close those 7-day mini RFCs. And so Arbcom will then have made a content decision: all those articles with incorrect and misleading prices, added without consensus by an editor they have topic banned, will still be there in a year's time. -- Colin°^Talk 07:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I see from Thryduulf's very readable expansion of #1 that there's a requirement to warn users using edit notices and talk page messages. The ~600 drugs we've identified so far as having prices may be incomplete (it was achieved by looking at pages that refer to certain drug database URLs, and the WHO Essential medicine list which has 500 drugs in it). There are 8461 transclusions to {{Infobox drug}}. That's a lot of pages to monitor. If we add in medical conditions (because someone might be tempted to go round adding the price of treatments to all such pages), then 9532 transclusions to {{Infobox medical condition}}. I assume we are talking about the sort of scary box you get when trying to edit Glyphosate. That's a lot of articles you are making people scared to edit, just because a handful of editors warred over one usually non-notable aspect of the article. -- Colin°^Talk 13:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the scenario posted by WhatamIdoing, I remain, perhaps naively, hopeful that a lot of the "wrong" prices that fail WP:V, WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT on grounds already established in the RFC can be removed once we get agreement that the RFC conclusion says what many of us believe it said. And if #1 is amended to allow a larger scale series of agreed edits, that would help. The #1a option would also allow such edits, though I'd want to be sure of consensus before doing the BOLD bit, and I'd want to know that anyone going around reverting because they disagree with WP:NOTPRICE, say, would find themselves stopped. So I hope, on the larger areas of potential agreement, both (amended) proposals would permit them to be implemented. It remains to be seen if agreement can in fact be found, especially considering James's remarks below demonstrate continued IDHT issues. But once the "low hanging fruit", say, is dealt with, then yes both options have the potential to be onerous on simply fixing stuff and "wiki" does mean "quick".

Let's also consider the adjectival prices, which I hope we can have an RFC on and establish some ground rules. Let say then that someone adds "Wonderpam is one of the more expensive anti-wikistress agents, but has a better safety profile than others". What if someone wants to simply reword this to be "is significantly more expensive than other anti-wikistress agents..." to fit the source better, or wants to substitute a better source (e.g. newer edition of the textbook). 1a would allow me to be bold and just fix that hopefully non-contentious improvement. But 1 would not without way too much overhead. So I think option 1 can't really be a long-term solution: it will need to be amended or retired if the community seems to be behaving healthily.

I also remain a bit skeptical about these mini-RFCs. First that we should discourage editors from just polling rather than discussing to find agreement. Second that we will struggle to find uninvolved editors to close. Third that those closing editors may simply count votes or respect authority figures (i.e. James) more than policy-based argument. Fourth that once those closing editors show either the wisdom of Solomon or demonstrate their clear outrageous bias when closing the discussion, they will then be regarded by one side as contaminated and unable to close any others. These bad things may not happen. But I'd like to know that Arbcom weren't going to ignore the issue for 6-12 months that #1 currently suggests before recognising if it isn't working and needs work. -- Colin°^Talk 07:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Remedy 1a

This remedy is modelled on BRD, which is an "optional" method of editing, not necessarily the best.

• Bold. Perhaps this isn't what we need right now, and is going a little too far in the opposite direction to #1 0E proposal.
• Revert. Some editors prefer not to be routinely reverting their peers and desire an alternative non-conflict method of collaborating on content. For example, simply to discuss.
• Discuss. The proposal restricts discussion to the article talk page, adds the overhead of a noticeboard and finding an uninvolved editor to close per-article (or per-revert -- there could be multiple prices or price-related statements all independently challenged).

The "restriction" appears to be simply that there are not two Rs in BRD, which we all know anyway, and that D has a lot of overhead. Some scenarios:

• Editor A boldly adds Canadian prices to several dozen drugs. If this is challenged, that is required to be by tediously reverting every single one of them, and then creating a talk page discussion for every single one and posting a message on the noticeboard for every single one.
• Editor B boldly remove prices sourced to drug price databases "per 2020 RFC". Their edits are stalked by editor C who didn't accept the RFC result, and who goes around reverting every one of them, and opening up talk discussions. 530+ noticeboard updates later...
• Editor C removes an incorrect treatment price. They are reverted by editor D who doesn't mind if the price is wrong, and who starts a discussion. Nobody participates. Incorrect price remains.
• Editor E removes a treatment cost per WP:OR. Editor F reverts and starts a discussion claiming the price meets WP:V and the source is a WHO publication. 10 friends of editor F vote "Support meets WP:V" or "Support per F". Uninvolved closing editor counts votes rather than considering if the WP:OR was addressed.
• Editor G removes the costs from the lead "per 2020 RFC". Editor H restores them to the body. Editor G is unhappy as a price that fails WP:V and WP:OR doesn't magically become policy-compliant in the body. Editor G claims they didn't revert the edit, just "adjusted" it because the only part of the 2020 RFC they accept is the discouragement of prices in leads, so no need to discuss.

There are probably others. These all seem compliant with the proposal, but are problematic.

For a remedy titled "Consensus required", it (a) doesn't require any consensus for the initial edit(s) and (b) permits an editor who is editing after achieving consensus through RFC to be stymied by another editor who rejects the consensus. While the moratorium option has excessive and inflexible rate-limiting, 1a doesn't have any rate limiting. The only sanctions seem to be for not following the procedure, rather than for repeatedly adding/removing/reverting without consensus, for example. Both 1 and 1a appear very focused on article-level local-consensus and not at all encouraging of developing and agreeing a general consensus. That might achieve quite random results, where prices are accepted in one article but rejected in another, when both prices are sourced and developed in the same manner.

Sorry this is a bit negative and doesn't offer solutions. That's why we pay you guys the big bucks. I'm not entirely sure of the solution other than "For crying out loud, abide by consensus and seek it where you are not sure. If it isn't clear, ask. Respect rather than revert each other. Use some decent modern sources, not any old ancient crap you find on Google Books. Find general agreement by discussion in preference to voting on restricted choices in a poll."

Btw, while most editors use "price" and "pricing" almost interchangeably, some have attached specific meanings to those words. Any restriction needs to be worded to include both numeric and adjectival prices and price-related commentary in articles. Perhaps "price-related" or chuck in a "broadly construed" to be safe? -- Colin°^Talk 16:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Colin, the idea with Remedy 1a is to enact one particularly common DS restriction for all this content. It's designed to be a simple remedy, with precisely two goals: a) to eliminate edit warring, and b) to provide central notification of talk-page discussions.

Under the current model (without any sanctions), a discussion can be started on the talk page, but editors will continue to edit war until someone protects the article. Then an RfC is started, which is left open for 30 days. Under this remedy (1a), as soon as an edit is identified as possibly contentious (via revert), any editor can begin a discussion which will be open for 7 days (not 30 as with a typical RfC).

This model allows for uncontentious implementation of global consensus, and intentionally does not have a rate limit. If 530+ articles need to be updated due to an RfC, they can all be updated. If someone habitually reverts them all simply because they don't like the result of the RfC, and not because they have something constructive to say about the particular implementation, they should probably be sanctioned for disruptive editing as a regular admin action, or by review at ArbCom. It's also worth pointing out that the standard enforcement provisions apply, so blocks, both site-wide and partial, can also be used to enforce this remedy.

I agree with changing "prices" to "pricing" and I have made that change. The "any edits related to" verbage should make it clear that no matter how one defines these words, this rule applies. – bradv🍁 16:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I see below Maxim is suggesting some general-edit ability for #1, which helps. Perhaps we just need to run with one of these and see how it goes. If it looks like editors are abusing the procedure, make it relatively lightweight for the procedure to be revised. -- Colin°^Talk 17:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thryduulf's variant

User:Thryduulf's variant seems closer to an amended 1 than 1a in that it doesn't allow any bold editing other than typo fixing or word rearrangement. I'm a bit concerned about the requirement to always post notices on every affected article and be specific about the text. This will work for individual article price statements and for some constrained general requests like "Remove all prices sourced solely to the drug price databases X, Y and Z", though is still a fair amount of work, and likely to need repeated to pick up articles missed the first time. But what about a general discussion about how to handle adjectival prices? It isn't clear (a) how many articles have such prices already and (b) how many articles could have them added, which seems effectively open-ended. Or a general discussion about the WP:NOTPRICES requirement "Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention." Perhaps we might even see an editor challenge this WP:NOT requirement in an RFC that could impact beyond drug prices. Would it be valid for the community to open such discussions without meeting all the requirements of "Discussions must:.." section, that then cannot be immediately enacted in article space, but do provide a useful stepping stone towards such.

How about adding something like:

The central noticeboard may also be used to facilitate general discussion on price sourcing, wording, agreeing on RFC conclusions and interpreting policy. Such discussions may also benefit from being closed by an uninvolved editor. However these discussions are merely a stepping stone towards community consensus and cannot themselves authorise specific edits.

The variant also shares my concerns about the closing editor and long-term viability. It seems virtually impossible to formulate a multi-article request to add prices (numerical or adjectival), or amend price statements, so both actions are going to be very non-wiki while this procedure is imposed.

There is also the concern that the "arbitrary baseline point" contains hundreds of prices we know already fail the 2020 RFC. So there is a risk that some editors simply act to prevent further consensus being made at all because they don't accept that RFC and don't accept WP:NOTPRICES: there is still the need to monitor editor conduct and advocacy pushing. -- Colin°^Talk 13:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Levivich's proposal

I think there is some merit in testing this idea (no new procedure at all). Per User:Colin/PriceEdits, we need to remember that all, every single one, of the problematic price statements were added by James, and all, every singe one, of the edit wars involved James restoring price-related text that had been removed. It takes more than one editor to edit war, of course, and some other editors later joined in with James in restoring his edits, but they did not initiate it. So it may be the article-topic ban on James is sufficiently moderating on hot headed editing to discourage anyone else from joining him. I think that might be worth trying. Either way, we're going to need to try something and see if it just goes pear shaped, and not having to set up noticeboards and posting scary warnings on thousands of drug articles is going to save a lot of effort. -- Colin°^Talk 15:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Standard discretionary sanctions

User:EdChem makes a good point. Can't you make the DS "concerning edits (either on article or talk space) related to drug prices and pricing" rather than "all pages related to". Does it have to have page scope? If it does, can you make it clearer. The "editing in this topic area" clause currently worded is ambiguous if it means whole pages or just "drug prices and pricing". I think this could encourage an administrator to add DS for something unrelated, or to threaten DS just because they are in dispute over some other matter. And is this going to mean any editor editing a drug or medical article for any reason, gets a disturbing "DS" notice on their user talk page? We don't want to make Wikipedia a scary place to edit just because of the disruption caused by the edits of one guy.

On Evidence, User:Some1 and User:Hipal showed how the dispute spilled over into iphone. Arguably both James and Hipal were responsible for extending that dispute (James in making iphone an example and Hipal for trying to remove that example), but Some1 showed that many medical editors were prepared to join in on that off-topic areas and cause conflict elsewhere on the project. There is a risk that may repeat if WP:NOTPRICES is challenged directly. It is possible that some medical editors may start adding or removing prices elsewhere on the project to try to make a point about drug prices, and extremely likely that that will provoke the same behavioural issues. This may be just something to put on the "keep an eye out for" rather than needing to extend sanctions. You could perhaps say something about Arbcom taking a very dim view of any editor extending the drug price conflict into other parts of Wikipedia. -- Colin°^Talk 07:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Thryduulf I think the concern is that if the scope of DS is a whole article, as your proposed text says, then this is greatly extending the scope of DS beyond the problem area. This isn't alt-med or whatever, where the whole article topic is a toxic mess. Perhaps there is some technical reason why DS have to be implemented at article-level but if so, can't we make it clear that the DS can only apply to the issue of drug prices/pricing? I see no reason to complicate the rules with separate whole clauses for articles/draft-articles and discussions. I don't think the idea of restricting this to articles that contain drug price content or have done in the last 30 days is at all workable. While there are ~600 drug articles with prices in the leads, there are many more thousands of drug articles that lack prices. It is the drug price edits, and discussions related to them, that are the problem area. Someone adding prices to articles that never had prices (or did several months ago) should be subject to the same sanctions as someone editing an article that already contains prices. Do we really need to police drafts? It could in fact be helpful if people could freely mock-up examples in their own user-space. -- Colin°^Talk 13:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I like the edit made by User:Bradv. That clarifies the scope, wrt price disputes, nicely. -- Colin°^Talk 15:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal challenged already

FYI, the discussion at Ethosuximide about one price statement was closed by User:Mdaniels5757 who then removed that statement. This was challenged by User:RexxS who called it a "non-admin closure", who counted votes, and who referred to an essay as though it was a guideline in criticising Mdaniels5757's post-closure actions. Mdaniels has put his closure on hold and has responded to RexxS at User talk:Mdaniels5757/Archive 2#RfC closure at Talk:Ethosuximide.

This is a price statement that James added in the middle of several rapid edits he made on 30 March, and which appear to involve the most minimal of research and care (there are several basic factual errors in what he wrote). James was, at that time, edit warring with several editors on multiple articles. The extent of the discussion over just one of numerous disputed price statements at Ethosuximide, and the fact that even a straightforward "removal of something that is in fact not true" is challenged, should be a matter of concern to the Arbs about ongoing conduct problems at drug pricing. -- Colin°^Talk 09:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no intention of doing battle with RexxS on this page, but would like to clarify two points. Firstly that my objection to the sentence James added to Ethosuximide ("As of 2008 it was generally affordable in most areas of the world.") is not based on the 2020 RFC as RexxS claims, but more basically on the fact that it is wrong, and very clearly and straightforwardly wrong. The arbs might want to consider why it takes so much text and so much dispute to remove one sentence that is wrong and was added in mere seconds. And secondly, I have never objected to the price databases as accurate suppliers of information so saying "using the very databases he so strongly objects to" is misleading. I have objected to them as sources for the article text that was added, which is quite a different thing. -- Colin°^Talk 12:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Tryptofish

First, I want to say thank you to ArbCom for a thoughtful first draft of the PD, and for trying to find a balanced position without overly taking sides, or doing too much harm to experienced editors. I have a few initial reactions that you may find useful in revising the decision, as I believe you will want to do.

First, @CFCF: please do not take this first draft personally. I hope that you will think it over, and not be so discouraged.

Now, to ArbCom: Barkeep makes an interesting point in re how you are to some extent invalidating the 2020 RfC if you pass the topic moratorium, although unlike him, I think you are right in your evaluation of it. I've commented earlier in the case about the perils of kicking the can down the road to WP:AE, and there are some ways that these perils do arise in this first draft. You can already see in the comments by others on this talk page how editors are starting to position themselves for such disputes. If all that is going to happen is going to be a series of stronger sanctions enacted by AE admins, perhaps you should just bite the bullet and do it yourselves, now.

Seeing the discussion among Arbs about the three diffs in the proposed FoF about Colin, I'd suggest that going through the evidence page will provide more and better diffs than the second and third that are there now. Arbs should not dismiss the idea of the FoF based only on those three diffs, as opposed to evaluating all of the evidence.

Added: Since some of the Arbs are continuing to express a desire for more information to base a decision upon, I've gone back to the evidence page and collected the following diffs. Please understand that I am adding nothing new here; every diff that follows is either linked to directly on the evidence page, or is an individual diff within a combined-diff link on the evidence page. Pick your favorite two or three, and replace the second and third ones with those: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Based on ongoing comments by Arbs about the PD, I'm concerned that several Arbs are reacting only to the three links that are in the FoF, and are concluding that those three links, alone, are insufficient evidence. Have you read what I posted here? If so, then you are just not convinced by what I've argued, and so be it, but I would be very unhappy to think that you are making decisions without full information. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: In light of the information about automated word recognition, what made you single out Bluerasberry's evidence here: [17] as being especially convincing? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I'm sorry, I don't know what information about automated word recognition you're referring to? – Joe (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I have a lot of sympathy for the concerns that CFCF and Literaturegeek have raised above (perhaps not surprisingly in the context of my own workshop proposals). It would be helpful if, for all editors for whom you will ultimately issue warnings or the like, the decision should say explicitly that further infractions will be covered by DS enforcement. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

For the standard DS proposal, you should make it clearer by saying "pharmaceutical drug prices". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

After thinking about this some more, I'm inclined to agree with Barkeep that it's questionable whether the untried moratorium idea should be used in preference to the established RfC method, especially if it will be scattered over so many individual pages – and I'll add my own opinion that it might also be better to now use the established standard DS method. I also think that there is an element of KISS (keep it simple... ) here: the more complicated the remedy, the less likely it is to work. (And Barkeep: although I sympathize with your disappointment with how the RfC has been received by the Arbs, I think that they are seeing it for what it truly was, and you cannot say that I did not try to warn you.)

And taking that point about KISS further, I'll suggest that the Arbs might want to consider a more decisive approach to some of the other potential remedies, more along the lines of my workshop proposals, to take some people out of the topic area entirely. After all, there are reasons why the RfC was destined, from the "front end", to turn out the way that it did. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I see that the remedy about standard DS was revised, and I appreciate the addition of the word "pharmaceutical", but a serious error was unintentionally introduced. The word "prices" or "pricing" (or the phrase "prices and pricing") was omitted. And this omission could create a nightmare for enforcing admins! As was discussed during the workshop, admins would find it almost impossible to work with DS that cover the entire "medical" area, and the DS need to focus on the price-related locus of the dispute. Believe me, you don't want this to extend to peptide synthesis! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

About the novel moratorium remedy, I've carefully read Maxim's comments, and I have these thoughts. First, I strongly agree with what Tony Ballioni has said. Put another way, I see the moratorium as a sort of Rube Goldberg contraption: it's probably about the best such contraption that can be constructed, and could have been a lot worse, but it's still a Rube Goldberg contraption. If ArbCom does decide to give it a whirl, I think Maxim's suggestion of a centralized discussion page is a good one, and I'd suggest taking it one step further. Have a centralized page for all such discussions, and have all such discussions (at least the ones that will be acceptable as having enforceable results) take place there, rather than on individual article talk pages (but link from the talk pages to there). I also think that the moratorium would work best if participating editors all come to it in a cooperative spirit – but I think that it's woefully wishful thinking to expect that to actually happen. I respect Maxim's right to hold the opinions that he does about "wit's end" remedies and the like, but I urge every member of the Committee to think hard about whether or not you agree with those opinions. Historically, it's been ArbCom's role, as assigned by the community, to resolve tough cases once and for all. I fear that we could be headed for a rough couple of months at AE that resolve nothing, followed by a Medicine 2 case that will have to do what should have been done now. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Levivich makes an excellent point regarding the lack of need to put restrictions on the vast majority of editors. As I see it, standard DS (for prices and pricing only) are still a good idea, but other kinds of hoops to jump through won't accomplish much good. I still think what I've already said and don't want to repeat, about editors who need more than just that, but Levivich comes by a different route to the same conclusion that I came to via Rube Goldberg. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think that the standard DS, as now revised, are right on target, and I think that the decision regarding Doc James is entirely appropriate. But how the Committee could come to the conclusion that it makes sense to single out CFCF for a reminder while telling everyone else to look to see if their shoes fit makes me despair for the future of Wikipedia. Clearly, I do not fit in here anymore. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Bluerasberry's comment got me thinking... Since Framgate, the WMF has been asserting that en-wiki has a problem with being unable to enforce civility. Thus, the Code of Conduct and the perception of a toxic editing environment. I think that this case is a test for ArbCom, for ArbCom's ability – or inability – to deal with incivility. I used to think that the WMF was a clown car in this respect, but maybe they are right. Just sayin'. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

In re the dudgeon over bludgeon, it seems to me that whether it is a policy, an essay, or something that was chiselled onto stone tablets, there is also a common-sense meaning of the term, and it refers to something that does not much help collaborative discussion. I hope that I am not bludgeoning the Committee when I remind them yet again that what one can see here on this PD talk page is what could very well be seen on a larger scale at AE and elsewhere over the next several months if ArbCom proves to be too indecisive now. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

First, I want to express appreciation to SoWhy for this: [18]. That's a thoughtful explanation, and I hope that you will be proven right.

I want to leave ArbCom with some feedback about how the case was carried out. The case request was narrowly focused on the drug pricing dispute, but the Committee broadened the scope to be about medicine more broadly, for what seemed to me to be the express reason of examining the more long-term aspects underlying the dispute. But in the end, the decision seems to me to be more about just the recent stuff, and consequently may fail to adequately deal with the underlying problem. I also think that some Arbs came into the case with a strong aversion to sanctioning experienced editors, and instead tried to work around that with complicated constructions, some of which floundered at the workshop stage, and some of which, like the moratorium, will not make it into the final decision. I hope that in the future you will remember that the more complex the remedy, the less likely it is to work.

But most of all, I believe that the experiment with eliminating word counts and so forth is one that should not be repeated. Word counts and diff counts force editors to pick their battles, because they cannot litigate everything. Instead, what happened here was that some editors just threw everything at the wall to see what would stick, and that made the case much messier than it needed to be. It also led to more tit-for-tat than was helpful. Also, for whatever reason, too many editors put opinion essays on the evidence page, instead of providing evidence (diffs). As a result, the amount of useful evidence was very lopsided towards one perspective, and unfortunately that lopsidedness is going to carry through to the final decision.

And, for whatever it may be worth, my own broad view is what I just said here: [19]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Hipal/Ronz

Topic moratorium remedy: I currently estimate that there are about 600 medicine articles with pricing information that needs review. A large percentage, if not a majority, have V/OR problems. A majority have UNDUE/LEAD problems. The topic moratorium's requirement for local consensus while discouraging an "excessive" number of change requests seems to ensure that we cannot address these content problems. Granted, we should be working to find a general consensus that can be applied to these articles, but the moratorium seems to prevent any action based upon any such general consensus. I'm not sure how this is going to work, though I do appreciate that it would finally put brakes on creating more of such content.--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid the topic moratorium, without changes, fails WP:CONLOCAL, and so prevents the improvement of this encyclopedia when it comes to pharmaceutical drug pricing. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

One of the results of the RfC was that the MSH Price Guide should not be used as a sole source. This is the case for the majority of the 530 articles that Colin identified. How are we to go about applying this RfC result? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you to those working on a solution. Treating all relevant content as being under full protection per Bradv's summary [20] is easy to understand. I hope Maxim's proposal Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed_decision#Comments_by_Maxim will be accepted. It is consistent with every large-scale cleanup effort that I've been a part. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Consensus required remedy: This remedy gives us a way forward. Thank you. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Locus of dispute: Please change "Prices" to "pricing". There's been Wikilawyering over this that needs to end. WP:NOTPRICE says, "An article should not include product pricing or availability information..." --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem: Yes, it has spilled over. See the Evidence page where IPhone 11 is mentioned by multiple editors. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by DGG

First, before I suggest some changes, I want to make it clear that he topic moratorium is an excellent idea. It will take some thought for me to be sure about the exact wording, and some of Colin's caveats might be valid, but the general idea is a good approach, and should perhaps be one of our standard approaches. In particular, I agree completely with Colin's suggestion that as apart or follow up to any RfC we need to decide wether to use vague qualitative terms, or numerical values. (I would never have even imagined the practicality of exact values until the recent possibility of obtaining & updaying them from Wikidata )

• on P8 (Pricing). The following needs to be added in some manner:

a.It is emphasised that he policy does not contain a provision against the inclusion of prices when there is an independent source and an justified reason for inclusion. ,

b.Despite the continued presence of the NOT statement, this policy has been widely ignored in many topic areas in addition to medicine, such as Computers, motor vehicles computer games, , transportation , and online services. Some of these are only apparent, because they occur in situations where there is an independent source and an justified reason for violations. Others are where neither criterion holds, but the information is included nonetheless and not usually challenged. Some of them are where the prcing is part of the comparison of prices from competitive vendors.

c. as a complement to P8,

The effective policy in wikipedia is what is consistently done, not what policy statements say ought to be done. (this could equally well be a part of Proposed principle 9 or 10 as a separate principle)

• on FoF 1,Locus of Debate , Medical articles are not unique in their possible danger: articles on politicsand on topics such as climate change or other public issues can cause even more widespread harm.
• additional FoF: Sandy Georgia has degraded discussions by baseless accusations of bad faith and needless antagonism, [links throughout his evidence] (same wording as for Colin)
• onR5, Remedies, Doc James,etc. It should be

DJ, Colin, and Sandy are warned to avoid making multiple or contentious edits relating to pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing in the article namespace except by consensus at the relevant talk page, to avoid attempting to dominate discussions, and to avoid insisting on a personally preferred version. or, possibly just

DJ, Colin, and Sandy are warned to avoid making multiple or contentious edits relating to pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing in the article namespace except by consensus at the relevant talk page. or, if really felt a warningwould not be sufficiently effective

Doc James, Colin, and Sandy are prohibited from making any edits relating to pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing in the article namespace except by consensus at the relevant talk page

The apparent view that the problem is due primarily to one person only is incorrect, as such views usually are. Some others have commented that the committee has picked the wrong person, but there is no need to decide that.

• In general, it is a frequent standard technique at Wikipedia to try to win an argument by driving opponents from the field, either by abuse, or forming a block of opponents, or repeatedly objecting to peripheral issues, or, if nothing else will serve, inducing an opponent into something that warrants a topic ban or conduct block. Colin and Sandy, failing to win agreement on the talk page, have tried all of these methods here, and have succeeded, because arb com is in effect abetted them.

I'm not sure the committee realizes the effect of what it is doing--not just on this issue, but on other issues where editors will try the same tactics. I should emphasise that i do not think the committee intended to judge on the basis of the content issue, but it has had the effect of doing so. This has been a problem in other cases also; it is hard to avoid, because most conduct issues that reach the committee do ultimately derive from content disputes. The committee presumably thinks they have succeeded in being neutral by ignoring the content implications, but this is naïve .

personally, had I been on the committee, I would have voted for remedy 1, perhaps as modified by Colin, and simply given warnings. I would have been as neutral as possible on the underlying dispute--I would not topic block the people who might have deserved it, for fear of affecting the content issue one way or another, even to a side i might have thought right. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I should mention here that I agree completely with the second paragraph of isaacl's comment below DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

And I see Colin objects to my additions to P8. I do not see this as an attempt to set policy on pricing any morethan the arb com's original P8. It is simply a more accurate statement of the actual role of policy statements in WP, in general, not just here. The examples are just examples to indicate the extent to which we do not follow written policy. I do have a view on what to do about pricing in this field, and it agrees with none of the parties. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

One more quick question about the Discretionary sanctions remedy: Does "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." apply only to articles on drugs, or also to such things as general articles about the drug industry or mentions of drugs in all contexts whatsoever within WP? I see some discussion on it below from Bradv. but I do not think it answers� the question. What for example would be the status of information on a drug pricing controversy involving a particular manufacturer in a page on the company? What about a discussion of drug pricing in an article on a supreme court lawsuit that might hinge on the issue, or even mention the issud, ? What about discussion of drug pricing in an article on the introduction of a requirement for negotiation about drug pricing in Medicare? And what about an article specifically and exclusively about he pricing of a specific drug,assuming afd would accept such an article? DGG ( talk ) 14:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)`

and, Bradv, when you write, " I would prefer to activate DS for all articles related to pharmaceutical drugs (or even medicine), broadly construed. – bradv🍁". aren't you aware of the way discretionary sanctions are used in WP to enforce conformity by whatever interest group, or have you never looked at American politics? They were once necessary to deal with popular invulnerable administrators, who would otherwise be immediately rescued by one of their colleagues, but have now become our main hindrance in the fight against POV articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC) �

DGG, this would authorize uninvolved administrators to apply restrictions or sanctions wherever disruption occurs within the context of pharmaceutical drug pricing. This applies regardless of the actual subject of the page in question, and so it would include all four of the examples you gave. The point is that discussions about drug pricing have become so acrimonious and so disruptive that extra measures are needed, and we can't expect to be able to take a new case every time there is a new dispute about this topic. Delegating some of the possible remedies, such as 1RR restrictions and topic bans, to uninvolved administrators at AE is a tried-and-true method of dealing with this sort of disruption. – bradv🍁 17:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

rather, it's a tried and true method for any one admin who has strong views to fore the community to follow them, unless there is the rarely achieved actual consensus to revert his action. It resolves conflict at the cost of institutionalizing bias. The purpose of arb com is to regulate conduct in such as way as to diminish conflict without harming the basic purposes of WP; DS over a broad field subverts the purpose of NPOV. If all we wanted to do was to diminish conflict, we could do it by adopting patrolled edits for everything, an approach the community soundly rejected. It would be even more effective to freeze WP and ban all further editing. Your broad approach , as examples below from others have shown, is broad beyond reason. It's addressed to any conceivable potential conflict in the entire field whether likely or unlikely, not to the actually demonstrated conflict. It's increasing the scope of conflict. (paradoxically, it might help get us free from DS altogether, by increasing their use to levels that the community will agree is disruptive, or the number of appeals at arb com. to the level that arb com gets rid of it by itself.

There's another way of looking at it : You are making it so difficult to find any way of discussing drug prices that essentially no editor without a very strong POV will go near it, and then you are specifically blocking the most effective editor on one side of the POV from the field: you're making a subject coverage decision. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The discretionary sanctions enforcement procedure gives the following explanation, under Guidance for Editors:

The availability of discretionary sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion, but sanctions may be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts discussion.

If applying DS makes it more difficult to discuss the topic at hand then that is completely contrary to its goals and its design. That claim also does not align with my experience working in DS areas, as I have always found it helpful in providing administrators the tools they need to curb disruptive behaviour.

Regarding the scope, the proposed remedy has been amended twice, and is now limited to the precise area of the dispute in this case – discussions and edits about the pricing of pharmaceutical drugs. I do not subscribe to your claims that authorizing DS for this area institutionalizes bias, increases the scope of the conflict, or amounts to a content decision. – bradv🍁 14:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by isaacl

While I appreciate the standard procedure for requesting an amendment applies to the moratorium, perhaps this can be explicitly stated as an option should a general consensus emerge through discussion.

Regarding flaws in consensus-based decision making: yes, it's well-known that consensus doesn't scale upwards to a large group (I've discussed it for years now). In addition, Wikipedia's guidance on rough consensus is interpreted by some closers that guidelines (as opposed to policies) must be judged and applied by the participants in a discussion, rather than the closer weighing the validity of arguments based on existing guidelines. (Note although that section is on the deletion guidelines page, it is referred to in Wikipedia:Closing discussions § How to determine the outcome.) This means guidelines only provide guidance as far as editors are willing to follow them, and RfCs will only work as long as supporters of the determined consensus view follow up in all subsequent discussions. These characteristics of English Wikipedia decision-making are particularly problematic in an area with a relatively small number of subject matter experts who disagree strongly with each other on the best approach. isaacl (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Some1

FoF #6 states: "Their [Doc James'] low usage of edit summaries has contributed to problems in collaborative editing." with Bradv stating in the same section: "Edit warring, ignoring consensus, misleading or missing edit summaries – these are all behavioural issues that need to be corrected." Then how come there aren't any proposed remedies for these, especially regarding the absent/misleading use of edit summaries that was brought up by SandyGeorgia in the Workshop? Some1 (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

+1 to being disappointed along with Barkeep49, but for other reasons. I feel like so much is being missed from the Proposed Decision. I'm surprised Blueraspberry and Ozzie10aaaa weren’t even mentioned at all, especially when Blueraspberry’s advocacy and his essay, WP:PRICES, have been pointed out several times in the Evidence and Workshop phase, and Ozzie enabling Doc James’s behavior is a long-term behavioral problem. And only a drug price edit restriction for Doc James, although, per my comment above, one of the drafting arbs said in ‘FoF #6 regarding Doc James’: “Edit warring, ignoring consensus, misleading or missing edit summaries – these are all behavioural issues that need to be corrected." Then how will these issues be corrected when the only remedy for Doc James is just restricting him from editing drug prices in the main space (and this isn't even a full topic-ban)?

I understand that ArbCom wants to give the semblance of “neutrality” but that shouldn't result (in my opinion) in an incomplete, non-comprehensive Proposed Decision in the process (ArbCom is the last place to look at these long-term behavioral problems; and this case isn’t only about drug prices or it would’ve been named Drug Pricing instead of Medicine). Barkeep49 makes an excellent observation here about the "Appearance of neutrality" regarding ArbCom that is worth mentioning. The Proposed Decision are only ideas from the drafters. There are 10 active arb members and maybe they have different ideas and different proposals that are not in the current proposed decision. Not everything from the PD has to pass; there is always the option to “Oppose.” But at the same time, I guess maybe the 10 arb members might have all agreed on this current Proposed Decision and that there has already been a proposed unanimity (?). Some1 (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Some1, I can assure you that there is no unanimity on this proposed decision, and that the comments made here are all being carefully read and considered. We can still propose new motions or modify existing ones based on the feedback here – nothing is final until the motion to close is carried.

Regarding people not being mentioned in the remedies section – I would hope that all of the participants in this dispute read the principles, findings of fact, and remedies, and consider their own actions in light of ArbCom's observations – whether or not we explicitly call them out. – bradv🍁 03:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Bradv. Just curious then, what's the next step if Doc James, for example, continues to use misleading or inaccurate edit summaries or if other problems already explained on the Evidence/Workshop pages (but not included in the PD remedies) continue again? Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement states: "Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a discretionary sanction imposed by an administrator". Some1 (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Some1, editors who continue to disrupt the project after receiving warnings from ArbCom may be reported to the committee, either at ARCA or by means of a new case request. – bradv🍁 04:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

My comment referenced above about the PD isn't about horse-trading or getting lockstep agreement before posting a proposed decision publicly, it's about getting sensible comments and feedback earlier to make the proposed decision run smoother, the same way the public workshop is used. If we propose something that other arbs clearly don't think is in the right realm or feel like a lot is missing, that's much better feedback to have earlier. The PD phase can quickly break down into a nightmare of votes for clerks to manage if you're trying to get it another 50% towards completion versus the last 20%. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

With regards to parties not mentioned, we simply didn't find enough evidence to merit it. Arguments that good-faith editors are meatpuppets frankly needs stronger evidence than was presented; like-minded editors commenting on content in the same area of their interest is naturally what happens, not some shadowy conspiracy. Arguments that an editors' edits are a competence issue likewise require more and better evidence than presented. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m just curious about the drafting process in general and how much input the other arbs have on the FoFs and proposed remedies. And I’m just thinking about the range of possibilities of how this whole Medicine case PD would’ve looked/turned out if other arbs were drafting instead. Would it look the same, similar, or completely different? Would they have also come up with a “Topic moratorium”? Would a topic-ban from drug pricing be proposed instead of an editing restriction to just namespace? Are there extra stuff in the Evidence/Workshop pages that they believe are worthy of a FoF and remedy? If Beeblebrox were drafting, would “Desysop Doc James” be an option? These are just rhetorical questions. Some1 (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

S Marshall

Strongly endorse Barkeep49's first point. Although that RfC did not resolve everything, it certainly did reach perfectly intelligible and actionable conclusions.—S Marshall T/C 23:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

QuackGuru

I'm not QuackGuru's friend. But I'm a bit uncomfortable that he's been topic banned on the basis of a case that he wasn't allowed to participate in: I think that's a rough outcome for him. Please will Arbcom consider adding some narrative about his appeal options to their decision.—S Marshall T/C 20:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

On the tension between FoFs principles #6 and #8, and proposed remedy #1

@Thryduulf:: I disagree with your proposed wording because, in the light of Arbcom's sixth and eighth principles, I don't think it should be a sanctionable offence to remove the drug pricing information that should never have been inserted in the first place.

I do realise that all you're trying to do is enact proposed remedy #1 in clearer terms. As I see it, there is considerable tension between those sixth and eight principles, and proposed remedy #1. I think that principles #6 and #8 are Arbcom deciding that the RfC is actionable, whereas proposed remedy #1 is declining to enforce that RfC and crystallizing the fait accompli that Arbcom criticized in principle #6 literally a couple of paragraphs above. I think we'll need the arbitrators to resolve that tension before we can come up with good wording.

Arbitrators, if you do intend to stand by principles #6 and #8, then I hope your remedy will empower editors to do the cleanup.—S Marshall T/C 12:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Maxim: That's an improvement.—S Marshall T/C 16:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you to the arbitrators for your patience and hard work in reaching what I think is a fair and appropriate conclusion.—S Marshall T/C 16:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Seraphimblade

So, two issues with the PD. Firstly, there seems to be a discrepancy between a proposed principle and a proposed remedy. Principle 6 states "It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change." However, proposed remedy 1 enshrines the very "fait accompli" and indeed forbids its reversal. In addition, there is a factually incorrect statement in that proposed remedy: "In consideration of the lack of clear global consensus on the subject...". There are in fact two instances of clear global consensus: WP:NOPRICES, part of the long-established policy What Wikipedia is not, and the recent RfC. Consensus on the matter is already quite clearly established; the issue is that a few people have been making a massive number of edits to attempt to end-run it, rather than taking the proper route in the first place: An RfC to amend or abolish WP:NOPRICES. This remedy would state that such behavior will ultimately be rewarded, and even protected, if only one is persistent enough. I cannot imagine how that is a good message to send. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Doc James

It appears many believe WP:NOTPRICE is a prohibition, yet it says "unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention". Agree the prior RfC Wikipedia:MEDMOS2020 supported not generally including numerical prices of medications in the lead of articles (with exceptions such as this I imagine) and if I remain involved was planning to move them to the body of the text. We have this RfC Talk:Simvastatin#Clarification_of_RfC that supported non numerical prices in the lead (despite that RfC trigger this arbcom case). Prices also could use rounding to at most two significant digits. I was planning a RfC regarding whether or not this source could be used without doing any calculations or syntheses. But of course we ended up here before I could start it.

This 2016 RfC closed "Except in the cases where the sources note the significance of the pricing". The source states on page E-3 "MSH, in collaboration with WHO, is working with partners to make existing medical product price information more widely available... This will contribute to equitable access to health services and commodities, including essential medicines, that are necessary for the prevention and treatment of prevalent disease. Prices and financing are inescapable factors in determining access to essential medicines."[21] That is IMO a clear indication of the significance of these prices.

The lack of remedies to deal with the many years of incivility raised in this case is a concern. Some have not engaging with these conversations as people worry about becoming the target of that incivility. Would likely be part of the reason three editors who share a similar perspective made more than half the edits to the MEDMOS2020 RfC.[22]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

User:bradv discussion was here. And was started by me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Thryduulf

• Principle 8 (Existing policy on pricing) - this reads much more like a finding of fact than a principle. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  Regarding PP8, it was originally a FoF but some arbs felt it was a principle given that it's a matter of historical record. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: "a matter of historical record" is a finding of fact. Principles are general statements that are generally agreed to apply across the encyclopaedia at all times which all experienced editors should be aware of. Findings of fact are specific things that are directly related to the matter at hand (or its background) which have little general relevance. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Remedy 2 (Standard discretionary sanctions) - I agree with bradv that the proposed scope isn't great. I think authorising it for "all content and discussions related to drug pricing" would be better if the desire is to be more limited than pharmaceutical drugs or medicine. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Regarding the scope of discretionary sanctions, perhaps something like, "(a) articles and draft articles that contain contain content related to pharmaceutical drug prices and/or pricing; (b) articles and draft articles from which content related to pharmaceutical drug prices and/or pricing has been removed in the last 30 days; (c) discussions, in any namespace, related to pharmaceutical drug prices and/or pricing, including, but not limited to, discussions about the addition or removal of such content." would cover everything needed? If anyone tries to game this, e.g. by adding and then removing drug pricing content, or by waiting 31 days, should be sanctioned for disruption and gaming the system (perhaps by being topic banned). Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @DGG: If it came to AE with the current wording I would interpret it as applying equally in all topic areas on enwp. Given that the evidence showed disruption has extended outside the scope of medical articles there is at very least an argument that this is a good thing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Thryduulf regarding Remedy 1

• Remedy 1 (Topic moratorium) - why the restriction to "broad" topic bans? I can foresee problems with that AE if, for example, it is thought desirable to restrict an editor from initiating edit requests (either completely or rate limiting) but not necessary to prohibit them from commenting on ones initiated by another editor. The permitted remedies would seem to permit only banning them from a broad topic area (perhaps "drug pricing" or "diabetes"), banning them from a specific page or pages and/or a site-wide block. The second of those would get unwieldy very quickly in certain circumstances.Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  The more I read other's comments about this the less I support it as it seems that the Committee is making the same mistake they did with Infoboxes: entrenching the dispute, rewarding bludgeoning and previous disregarding of consensus and hindering general resolution attempts. TonyBallioni's comments are particularly interesting in regards understanding of the remedy, so I have attempted to rewrite it into bulleted form below. Text in italics is implicit or extrapolated, plain text is verbatim or simple rewording:

Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• @S Marshall: This isn't something I'm proposing, it's literally just a rewording of what I understand is currently proposed by the committee in remedy 1. I do not support either the original or my wording of the remedy because (as you and others note) it has serious failings and leaves significant things unclear, and if there is anything in the above I've got wrong then that's another problem. Pinging those arbs who are currently supporting the remedy: @David Fuchs, Beeblebrox, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, and Worm That Turned:. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thryduulf's suggested alternative to Remedy 1/Remedy 1a

Based on the comments on this page, I think this (or something similar to it) will achieve the aims of the committee while still being workable.

• For all content related to drug prices or drug pricing an arbitrary baseline point is defined at 00:00 UTC 28 May 2020
• No content about drug prices or prices may be added, removed or changed without active consensus, except:
  • Any content may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or {{Citation needed}} as appropriate provided that a discussion is opened shortly afterwards (within about 10-15 minutes in most cases).
  • Minor edits that do not change the meaning do not require prior consensus.
• All changes affecting multiple articles must be discussed at a central noticeboard, and this discussion linked from the talk page of all affected articles.
  • In the case of a large number of articles, these links may be made by bot, AWB or similar tool.
• Changes affecting only one article may be discussed on that article's talk page or at the central noticeboard, but must be linked from the other.
• Discussions must:
  • Make clear what changes are proposed
  • Make clear why the changes are proposed, including references to current policy
  • Make clear which article(s) will be affected
  • Include sources where appropriate
  • When links to the discussion from talk pages were added, if this was more than a few minutes after the discussion opened.
• Discussions must be open at least 7 days after notifications are made to the talk pages of affected articles and closed by an uninvolved editor, except:
  • Proposals that are clearly not going to gain consensus may be withdrawn at any time
  • Proposals that are clearly uncontroversial may be closed by an uninvolved editor after 3 days, or an involved editor 3 days after a proposal to close receives either (a) no objections, or (b) a clear consensus in favour.
  • Any other proposal may be closed by an involved editor after 14 days if (a) a request at WP:ANRFC has been unanswered after 7 days, and (b) there have been no new substantive comments about the proposal for at least 24 hours, and (c) the closure is prominently marked as being involved.
• The result of all discussions on the central noticeboard must be noted on the talk page of all affected article(s).
• Changes made to articles as a result of discussions must clearly identify the relevant discussion in the edit summary.
• Any editor may revert changes made contrary to these provisions without penalty, unless that editor is subject to a specific restriction otherwise.
• Any editor who knowingly breaches these restrictions or otherwise disrupts these articles or discussions about these articles may sanctioned at WP:AE. Such sanction may be anything that would be permitted by standard discretionary sanctions, specifically including blocks, topic bans and page-level restrictions.
• Reasonable efforts should me made to ensure that good faith editors are aware of these restrictions. This may include edit notices and/or talk page messages. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Amorymeltzer

I've not followed this case closely so I don't have much to say about the PD itself, but I did want to comment on one FoF, specifically #3: Unclear consensus of requests for comment is not novel. This and its partner principle (#9, Clarity of consensus) were workshopped by Maxim AFACIT; they seem generally fine, although the FoF seems to imply that rancorous disputes are the natural outcome of a lack of consensus rather than behavior of editors. To wit, I think some of the signing statements are slightly off. Lack of or unclear consensus is unavoidable at times, but it is a feature that consensus cannot be required. The easy consensuses have been established and I agree that as the project continues to mature what remains are inherently thorny or novel and without good precedent. I do not, however, think it is a problem. The problem is, as always, editors who take problematic action and behave disruptively. This case seems to show it, and I think Principle 9 attempts to model behavior in these situations while showing admirable comfort with that reality. The signings won't be present in the final decision, so this is just weak tea (especially since I don't think any of the Arbs actually think "lack of consensus" needs to be fixed). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by RexxS

I'm seriously concerned that Bradv is ruling on content far too much. If he is going to do so, then he should at least make explicit his own position on the issues. When commenting on PR1a, he gives this example and states that it does not have consensus. That example adds the following text to the lead of Atorvastatin: "It is available as a generic medication and is relatively inexpensive." sourced to:

• "Atorvastatin Calcium Monograph for Professionals". Drugs.com. AHFS. Retrieved 23 December 2018.
• Hitchings A, Lonsdale D, Burrage D, Baker E (2014). The Top 100 Drugs e-book: Clinical Pharmacology and Practical Prescribing. Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 197. ISBN 978-0-7020-5515-7.

The text is part of the section of the lead indicated as summarising the History and Society and culture sections. I have a disagreement with Colin over whether pricing information (as opposed to dollar prices) has ever been prohibited. I've already stated my view that WP:NOTPRICES actually begins "Wikipedia articles are not ... Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information ...", and was never intended to apply to qualitative descriptions of pricing. I've already stated that the 2016 RfC found consensus to add pricing where the sources note the significance of the pricing. I've already stated my view that that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices was never posed to address the issue of qualitative descriptions and do not prohibit them.

If Bradv is going to comment from the position that adding any qualitative pricing information is against consensus, he should be making clear his own position on one side of that content dispute. Does he now reject the consensus at Talk:Simvastatin #Clarification of RfC, as closed by an uninvolved admin?

Let me be clear: I see consensus to remove the prices of drugs from the lead of articles following the 2020 RfC (apart from exceptional cases like Insulin). I'd be willing to help with their removal. Nobody is objecting to amending the PR to do so.

Nevertheless, I disagree strongly with the removal of properly sourced qualitative descriptions on any grounds other than WP:WEIGHT, and that necessarily needs to be discussed on each article. If the thrust of Bradv's commentary is to legitimise the systematic removal of phrases like "available as a generic medication and is relatively inexpensive" despite sourcing, then I feel that he needs to make that explicit. When an Arb makes a comment based purely on their own interpretation of a content issue, perhaps it's time to allow ArbCom as a whole to make rulings based on their collective position on a content dispute. It's not fair process to allow one Arb to rule based on their position on content while others, who may disagree on the content issue, refrain from doing so. --RexxS (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, it was just an example of edit warring over drug pricing. That particular sentence had just been removed by another editor, with a reference to the closed RfC, and Doc James restored it, without discussion, and with a misleading edit summary. As evidence that the article was not in a stable state, I'll point to the fact that you applied full protection to the article a few days later due to continued edit warring. Having an opinion about the behaviour of the editors involved in this dispute does not mean I have an opinion on content. – bradv🍁 18:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: you characterised James' restoration of sourced content like this: "much of this pricing data was added by Doc James, who continued to do so even after the RfC concluded (example). These edits do not have consensus, and many of them will be relatively straightforward to fix...". I hope you can understand my difficulty in seeing how "relatively inexpensive" can be construed as "pricing data", and my dismay that you seem to prejudging consensus, in a manner contrary to the 2016 RfC, particularly when you characterise his edit summary stating that there is no support for the removal, as "misleading". If you're assuring me that it was intended merely as an example of edit-warring, then fair enough; but if you're stating that there's consensus to systematically remove phrases like "relatively inexpensive", then please so so plainly. Otherwise the result will be the folks wishing to see any mention of pricing information taking your comment as a green light to go ahead, and folks like me resisting that as a plain violation of our normal policies on representing significant views when properly sourced. I'd rather not see that happen, so please can I ask you to be clear on what you are ruling on? --RexxS (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, there is a lengthy discussion at Talk:Atorvastatin#Price information about that edit, in which both you and Doc James were accused of edit warring and ignoring the results of the RfC. Doc James even argued that the consensus on a talk page of a different article was more relevant to this discussion than the RfC results. I get that there's a difference between "price" and "pricing", and that a future RfC still needs to sort that out, but the fact remains that Doc James did not have consensus for that revert. Regarding the misleading edit summary part of my comment above – you are right, I was thinking of many of the reverts on that page that simply said "adjusted", like this one, rather than the example I used which said "no support for this". – bradv🍁 19:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: indeed I was unjustly accused of edit-warring, but you fail to note that I posted on the talk page while the admin who twice removed the sourced phrase "and is relatively inexpensive" without discussion on talk was not mentioned as edit-warring. The edit summary for the removal was WP:NOPRICES as well as an explicit RfC. So I take it then that you agree that "relatively inexpensive", even when sourced, is prohibited by WP:NOTCATALOG and by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices. Thanks for making your position on that content dispute clear. That will be the green light for systematic removal of similar phrases even for articles like Simvastatin. Please don't be surprised when your support for that interpretation simply results in another round of content disputes breaking out. --RexxS (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Colin is bludgeoning the debate again

As part of his 40K of text on this page alone, Colin is now seeking to overwhelm the responses here with his usual walls of text. Today he has brought up the the challenged closure of an RfC at Talk:Ethosuximide as if that was a behavioural problem. He neglects to mention that a similar RfC at Talk:Simvastatin was closed without challenge a week ago by an uninvolved admin in favour of inclusion of a descriptive statement about pricing in the lead. The reality is that Colin's arguments that the 2020 RfC and WP:NOTCATALOG prohibit such statements have been shown to be false, and his response is to double down on his overblown rhetoric.

He criticises me for calling the close at Talk:Ethosuximide a "non-admin closure", and yet that is exactly what it was (the closer, Mdaniels5757 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is not an admin). He denigrates the advice given in Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions, which is linked from both Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Closing discussions. We also have the advice at WP:BADNAC: "A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations: ... The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator."

As you can read at my request for review at User talk:Mdaniels5757 #RfC closure at Talk:Ethosuximide, I did far more that just "count votes", although it was clear that a majority supported the RfC, and Colin again seeks to distort facts to suit his own ends.

As can be seen from the discussions at the the article talk and the closer's talk, there is a reliable source that supports at least the thrust of the disputed statement, but Colin has conducted his own original research, using the very databases he so strongly objects to, in order to question that including asserting that Google got the date wrong.

Colin's behaviour is typical of what has gone on over many years, and it is disappointing that the Committee have so far failed to recognise that. Choosing to ignore the longer view and focusing on the minor content dispute about drug pricing bears no relationship to what you stated when you agreed to examine this case. To further choose to blame just one side of a content dispute is repeating the mistakes of the first infobox case, and validating Colin's behaviour will do nothing to remove the problems generated by Colin every time he takes up a crusade. It should be obvious that the 2020 RfC was unsatisfactory as a means of settling content disputes and clarification is urgently needed between the acceptability of quantitative prices in dollars and qualitative descriptions like "inexpensive". I, for one, am unwilling to attempt that task because I know that it will only be overwhelmed by Colin's walls of text in response to every commentator that he doesn't agree with. Without some sort of curb on his behaviour, there is little prospect for any reasonable compromise on any of the issues I outlined in my evidence. --RexxS (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing has been very selective about what she chooses to count. These are the actual counts for text added for this page:

Text added to this page

User	Bytes added
Colin	39,450
WhatamIdoing	8,389
RexxS	10,968

Compare that with Colin's 75,870 bytes of text on the Evidence page, his 48,910 bytes on the Workshop page, and the 2020 RfC where 40+ editors made 280 comments, an average of 7 each, but Colin made 43 posts. His methods are clear: contradict every opposing comment; overwhelm the discussion with sheer volume; and sling enough mud that some of it sticks. WAID should not become an apologist for that. --RexxS (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Your argument is that today's comments from Colin are only a small contribution, but you fail to recognise that my complaint is of a pattern of bludgeoning, of which today's is just one instance. Making counts based only on today's comments completely misses the point.

I've also been fairly active on many areas of our projects for a number of years, and this isn't my first rodeo. Your characterisation of winning and losing sides is far too BATTLEGROUND for my taste, as I think that in fact the encyclopedia is the loser when reliably-sourced, well-supported relevant content is removed from it. Our advice on challenging RfC closes at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is clear: "For other procedures, whether formal RfCs or less formal ones such as merging or splitting, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion.", which is exactly what I did. If you want to change the normal procedure, then you need to make your case at that information page, but please don't criticise me for following normal procedure.

I am disappointed by your criticism of my mention that it was a non-admin closure. I'll remind you that WP:BADNAC states that a non-admin closure is not appropriate when the outcome is a close call or likely to be controversial, when it recommends an admin closure. That is absolutely relevant to this close and you should accept that.

You're no more able to look at it impartially than I am, but I don't think you can say that there is any possibility of a "don't include" consensus from that discussion. The majority of participants were in support and their arguments were founded on the principle of reliable sourcing. That number of views cannot be simply dismissed, especially in a non-admin close.

I did mention the simvastatin RfC as it is directly comparable: over-zealous removal of properly sourced content on the mistaken grounds that the 2020 RfC gave licence to remove any mention of pricing, compounded by edit-warring to repeatedly remove it led to the RfC. That RfC was overwhelmingly support of retaining the content ("relatively inexpensive") and Colin wasn't in any position to challenge that. I think it would be valuable to have some guidance from the Arbs on how to proceed when those circumstances occur again, because it is obvious that some editors will now try to remove every mention of pricing information from drug articles on the pretext that the 2020 RfC or NOTCATALOG gives them free reign.

If you were to ask my advice, I'd suggest that you should not be stifling dissent from your position by attempting to outlaw any challenge to an RfC, even when the close is obviously wrong. There are going to be enough of those until we have clarification about what the consensus actually is on the inclusion of qualitative descriptions of pricing of drugs. I'm also interested in hearing how experienced arbs like User:Worm That Turned see the issue of preventing normal process at RfCs and the chilling effect of the threat of sanctions for anyone who challenges a bad close. --RexxS (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by TonyBallioni

Remedy 1 is passing, but it won’t work because it has too many words and no one who is supposed to abide by it or enforce it will read it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• @David Fuchs, Beeblebrox, Maxim, KrakatoaKatie, and Worm That Turned: pinging you all here because I don't want the comment above to go unnoticed. The content of the remedy might be a good one, but it currently reads like the printer use policy that takes up five paragraphs on page 17 of the employee handbook HR gave you on your first day. You know, the one that mentions you can be fired for printing personal stuff at work. This will have a few consequences:

1. people who aren't familiar with the area will fall foul of it even after being warned
2. less admins at AE will be willing to comment on the cases because the sanction is too wordy
3. the admins who do enforce it are more likely to enforce it incorrectly because they misunderstand it.

I'm neutral on the actual content, but if you want to keep the remedy as is in terms of substance, bullet points and bold wording of header words would really help in applying it. Right now the text formatting is going to make it difficult to deal with. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Cthomas3

Remedy 1 seems like a major step backward to me. I appreciate the sentiment, but by requiring prior consensus for any edit to content related to pharmaceutical drug pricing, we would appear to be entering uncharted waters with an editing policy beyond even 0RR; we are effectively at "0E", or "no edit at all without consensus", across not just a few articles but thousands. The most disappointing aspect, however, is the fact that we have finally achieved some level of consensus regarding drug pricing with the recently completed MEDMOS RFC; this remedy would explicitly set this consensus aside and reward a FAITACCOMPLI of hundreds of individual numeric drug prices sourced to a database explicitly rejected by that RFC, and push every one of these edits back to its local talk page to rehash a local consensus precisely where we have consistently failed to achieve it. This seems to me to be a colossal disservice to the efforts of the people involved in the MEDMOS RFC, as well as the dedicated cadre of editors who maintain our medical articles. CThomas³ (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Maxim: Thank you for your clarification, and I do think that is an improvement to Remedy 1. However, I am not sure that the answer to your final question still isn't "yes". Even if we take for granted that we'll end up in the same place with 1 and 1a, I think having a simple and well-understood sanction that gets us there is preferable to a novel and complicated one. Further, I don't know that I follow your logic that the better solution is to skip the "BR" part of "BRD" and go straight to "D". While I suppose it makes it less likely that a single edit or two will slip by the watchlisters, the downside is we'll either have far more unnecessary discussions because people simply won't know (or will be afraid to find out) what a "more likely than not" controversial edit is and go to the talk page every time, or they will simply not bother to try because of the onus we've now placed on them. We define controversial edits as those that another edits take issue with; I don't believe that asking people to attempt that determination ahead of time, with sanctions hanging over their head if they get it wrong, is a better outcome than allowing the edit and then objectively assessing it. If an editor is clearly missing the mark with their bold edits on multiple occasions, that can still be addressed by our normal procedures. CThomas³ (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by SandyGeorgia

@Cthomas3:, thank you for saying that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Clerk request: could a significant typo in my Evidence please be corrected?

In this section of the Evidence page,

this text links to the wrong section

• See my evidence regarding Colin at Elitism and cultural changes at WPMED.

It should link to the section that actually contains my evidence about Colin, which should be written as:

• See my evidence regarding Colin at WP:MED History.

I am making this request because a diff to that section is included in the Decision, so it should be correct.

Separately, as the case is about to close, I should express my appreciation that some of the arbs may have actually read some of my extremely lengthy evidence, my gratitude that I was allowed to present full evidence, and my disappointment that the proposed decision in this case will have zero effect on the problems affecting WP:MED, as none of the core problems (IDHT, OWNERship and coordinated editing) have been addressed or indicated in Findings of fact that can be referenced in the future. Having engaged in good-faith efforts to resolve disputes multiple times, what sensible editor would continue to show up to resolve inaccuracies allowed to stand in drug pricing content? Those who are guaranteed to show up are those who have some as-yet-to-be-understood drive to include inaccurate POV in medical content, and have already demonstrated that they will show up en masse to support even demonstrably inaccurate medical content. This case has effectively given free reign to medical content being determined by FAIT ACCOMPLI.

I cannot imagine why any sensible editor would want to contribute to medical content, when the net effect of engaging in dispute resolution is that diffless aspersions can be cast at good-faith editors on arbcase pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with the proposed remedies is right here with "all participants need to read the principles in this case and wear the shoes that fit"; asking participants who suffer from the most astounding IDHT I have ever encountered on Wikipedia to "wear the shoe that fits"-- while pointing out none of the problems in evidence with specific findings of fact-- is almost assuring that nothing will change regarding coordinated editing, IDHT and OWNership that have affected medical content WELL beyond drug pricing. This decision will have allowed participants to carry disputes to other areas (iPhone), start as many RFCs as they want on false premises, continue coordinated editing, continue ignoring policy, continue enforcing guidelines as if they were policy, continue ignoring community-wide RFCS, continue casting aspersions at those who actually engage dispute resolution, and all of the other cult-like behaviors that have taken over medical editing. Sensible editors will opt out-- not only of drug pricing disputes, but from the entire content area. I brought zero expectation to this case that the parties engaging in this conduct would actually be sanctioned, but it did not seem unreasonable to expect there to be specific findings of fact about the behaviors that have occurred, to be on record should they continue to occur-- nor has it ever seemed reasonable that diffless casting of aspersions would be allowed to stand on arbcom pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Reyk

So WP:FAITACCOMPLI has been reinstated? Reyk _YO! 12:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Guerillero

@David Fuchs, Beeblebrox, Maxim, KrakatoaKatie, and Worm That Turned: While I am a clerk on this case, I am also an AE admin, and a veteran of trying to write novel restrictions. And, I would like to state the fact that I agree with Tony about the enforceability of Remedy 1. It is going to be a nightmare at AE and what is going to happen is either a de facto version is going to arise based on how 10 admins read it or and endless parade of clarification requests. I wrote the original 30/500 restriction, which seemed like a simple thing at the time, and it went through a number of clarification requests, two revisions via motion, and a new case before it landed on the current stable version. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The simplest understanding of the proposed Remedy 1 is that it's indefinite full protection of all content related to drug pricing, enforceable by blocks. – bradv🍁 14:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The wordiness is a byproduct of trying to handle enforcement provisions and wikilawyer clauses in one remedy. For what it's worth, the original draft was wordier than the current version. Following TonyBallioni and Thryduulf's suggestions, we could split it up by bullet points/headers with a bunch of that going to enforcement. The remedy isn't intended as complicated; bradv has summarized quite succinctly. Maxim_(talk) 14:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Maxim

A fair bit of comments have been directed whether at me (by virtue of supporting remedy 1) or about remedy 1 in general. I'll use this section to provide a broad reply to those comments.

One of the crucial roles of arbitration on Wikipedia involves finding solutions that optimize for the best interests of the project as a whole and not necessarily to provide an optimal solution for the parties. But, it would be nice to find a solution that optimizes both the project's and the parties' best interest without the former necessarily affecting the latter.

Often times, these have been a combination of direct topic or site bans, or discretionary sanctions. In some cases, the Committee has has issued decisions that are perhaps on the draconian side with regards to individual parties ("a pox on all our houses" or "at wit's end" sorts of remedies). Such solutions are far from ideal, and speaking for myself, I have no interest in topic banning most of the parties as the conduct doesn't justify such an approach.

Another option is discretionary sanctions. These would be a better solution than banning everyone, but not a perfect solution. Nowadays, the community can implement sanctions by itself without our insistence. Another question becomes that of scope. Extending the sanctions to anything related to medicine may cover a huge amount of articles (there are no less than 70,000 articles affected and likely more). Restricting "pharmaceutical drugs" or "pharmaceutical drug pricing" is tricky. The first version is probably easier to enforce but has collateral effects on content that has nothing to do with the dispute. Regardless of what scope is chosen, will mass-scale edits be successful, especially with the spectre of discretionary sanctions looming? I don't think it provides a good framework to resolve the content dispute, so that's not ideal as far as the project is concerned.

A third option would something more novel, which is what is proposed in remedy 1. The idea with the topic moratorium is to restrict edits that are more likely than not to be contested. The moratorium is agnostic to the current version. I would argue that ruling whether a bunch of edits fall afoul of an RfC result is a gray area in terms of whether it's a ruling on content. Setting up some sort of framework for resolving the content dispute could also be a grey area, but I don't think it's as close to ruling on content.

At present the moratorium forces discussion for each article separately. Such an approach particularly helps reinforce the second part of the 2020 RfC closing statement. One piece of feedback that we're getting consistently is that a moratorium will keep a pre-moratorium series of mass edits in articles until you go around and discuss that on every individual talkpage that may not agree with the results of the 2020 RfC. What if the moratorium was amended to allow for a discussion of mass edits at centralised noticeboard. In point form:

• A consistent mass edit to a batch of articles is identified.
• A discussion is run to assess whether there is consensus for the mass edit (do individual talk page notifications to central discussion?)
• Implement the mass edit to the batch of articles if there is consensus.

For a concrete example, going with Cthomas3's example of a bunch of individual drug prices added sourced to a database:

• Suggested mass edit: remove individual drug prices source to specific database in a list of articles
• Discussion runs
• There is consensus to implement said edit (e.g. based on the conclusion of the 2020 RFC)/there is no consensus to implement edit (e.g. 2020 RFC result is not applicable to the matter).

I suppose that tries to solve a possible fault to a moratorium by adding more complexity. On the other hand, would leaving things the way they are, topic banning a bunch of editors, or adding discretionary sanctions provide a better framework for resolving the dispute? Maxim_(talk) 15:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by WhatamIdoing

I need to figure out what these two proposed processes look like.

So we have an article that says: In the developed world the wholesale cost per dose is about US$0.20 to US$2.32 as of 2014. This is wrong:

1. The source is exclusively about the developING world, but the sentence says this is the cost in the developED world.
2. The numbers in this sentence correspond to the price per 1 g vial, not the price per dose.
3. These numbers violate WP:NOR. This was the point of the second sentence of the 2020 RFC outcome, but I'll spell it out:
   • This claim mixes up different kinds of non-comparable prices, e.g., prices with and prices without shipping charges included. This is not a small consideration when you're looking at temperature-controlled international shipments. The cited source always labels and separates those different kinds of prices into separate tables, and it explicitly warns people not to combine or compare those separate datasets. Despite this, this claim combines the numbers in a data table without shipping and other factors (which has 10 data points) with the numbers in a separate data table, for prices that include shipping and other factors (which has 7 data points) to come up with a price range.
   • As a separate NOR violation, this claim also cherry-picks prices out of two data tables while omitting all the data in these two tables with a combined 11 data points plus these two other tables with a combined 6 data points, not to mention these 50 data points split across 7 separate tables for 2015.

There are also some problems with the writing that mislead the reader (this is the range of prices voluntarily reported in a single survey of a non-random sample of selected organizations, not a comprehensive determination of actual costs), and generally fails to explain the metes and bounds of the metaphorical territory that we're talking about.

Given all of these problems, and given that I don't want to try to copyedit something in an RFC or spend any more time arguing about whether WP:INTEXT attribution is necessary, I think that the simplest approach to this sentence is just to remove it. I'm looking at these two proposed systems, and trying to figure out what it takes to just remove this sentence. NB that I'm not trying to affect any other content in the article, and I don't want to prejudice future changes (e.g., a future, unrelated proposal to add good content about prices). I just want to remove this because it's actually wrong, and I don't like having wrong information in articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

---

So when I'm looking at the moratorium process that is currently supported by Fuchs, Beeblebrox, and Maxim, it appears that removing a sentence that contains obvious factual errors requires me to:

1. Go to the article's talk page
2. Propose that it be removed ("complete and specific description of the request").
3. Say it's a remarkable collection of embarrassing factual errors that has {{failed verification}} ("justification per existing policy").
4. Advertise the discussion in suitable forum(s) ("advertised by means of a neutral noticeboard").
5. Add the page to a new category ("and a tracking category").
6. Wait a week ("a minimum of seven days").
7. Warn editors who respond to the discussion that Here There Be Dragons ("every effort must be made to warn editors").
8. Get someone to close the discussion ("closed by any uninvolved editor").
9. (Possibly) remove the sentence.

Does that sound like the process you have in mind? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Now when I'm looking at the consensus required process proposed by Bradv, it appears that removing a sentence that contains obvious factual errors could happen in one of two paths:

1. Boldly remove the erroneous sentence ("Bold edits are permitted").
2. Nobody objects, so we're done.

– or –

1. Boldly remove the erroneous sentence ("Bold edits are permitted").
2. Someone restores it.
3. Go to the article's talk page to object to someone putting errors back in the mainspace ("if they are reverted they must be discussed on the article talk page").
4. Advertise the discussion in a new forum ("advertised on a neutral noticeboard").
5. Wait a week ("left open for at least 7 days").
6. Get someone to close the discussion ("consensus shall be assessed by an uninvolved editor").
7. (Possibly) remove the sentence.

Does that sound like the process you have in mind? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Looking at the newest (and IMO clearest) version of the discretionary sanctions process, it appears that removing a sentence that contains obvious factual errors should begin with:

1. Boldly remove the erroneous sentence, using a pointful edit summary like "Removing error-filled claim. It is not supported by the cited source, and it does not comply with WP:NOR, WP:V, or WP:MEDMOS2020".
2. See what happens.

If nobody objects, then we're done. If someone does object, then:

3. Any editor who objects to the removal of erroneous content can revert the bad sentence back on to the page (with or without changes).
4. Someone (probably me) starts a normal discussion on the talk page about this sentence.
   • During that discussion, it would be very much preferable, but is not technically absolutely required, that no third editor change or remove that sentence.
   • However, I personally (as the person who was just reverted) shouldn't re-remove the bad content from the article, and if a third editor removes it, then the second editor shouldn't re-insert it (and so forth, until we have multiple editors in that chain, and the page gets full-protected to stop it).

If we reach an agreement in that discussion, then we implement the agreement. If we don't reach an agreement, then:

5. I can follow the usual WP:DRN processes (e.g., start an RFC) to attempt to reach an agreement.
6. If I encounter someone who insists beyond any semblance of reason that the correct spelling for 1 gram vial is dose, then that's considered "bad conduct" (WP:IDHT problems) rather than a "content disagreement", and therefore is within the scope of WP:AE. Similarly, if someone appears with a passionate speech about The Importance of Drug Price Transparency and Anyone Who Removes Incorrect Prices is a Wikipedia-Censoring Shill for Big Pharma – but doesn't actually care anything so mundane and detail-oriented as whether the numbers in that sentence were calculated correctly – then I can ask the WP:AE folks to remove that person from the conversation.

Does that sound like the process you have in mind? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Talking too much

I see that there is an accusation above about WP:BLUDGEONing. That essay defines the key problem in the first sentence as "the sheer volume of comments". I've therefore done a quick estimate of how many words have been contributed to this page about that dispute and to the closer's user talk page:

Words spent disputing the Ethosuximide RFC outcome

Editor	This page	That discussion	Total
Colin	485 words (48%)	1,039 words (2 comments, 27%)	1,524 words
Mdaniels5757	0 words (0%)	1,316 words (4 comments, 34%)	1,316 words
RexxS	517 words (52%)	1,093 words (2 comments, 29%)	1,610 words
Highest word count	RexxS	Mdaniels5757	RexxS

I don't think there is evidence of anyone engaging in an unusual volume of comments here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, your accusation today is that Colin is bludgeoning the discussion about Ethosuximide, e.g., "Today he has brought up the the challenged closure of an RfC at Talk:Ethosuximide as if that was a behavioural problem." My counts, as stated, are only about the discussions related to the closure of that RfC.

On the question of you challenging the RFC outcome, I've been one of the "regulars" at WT:RFC for approximately forever, and I have seen some good challenges and many bad challenges. It is almost always the case that bad challenges come from people who advocated loudly for the "losing" side in the RfC, but it is usually the case that the good challenges come from this group, too, so I don't think that the mere fact that you were on the "losing" side would normally be a problem. If you had asked at WT:RFC for advice, I would have recommended posting your challenge at the talk page, rather than on the closer's user talk page. I would have recommended that you not mention whether the closer is an admin. After all, you have previously said yourself that admins have no special rights when it comes to content decisions like that one. Looking at it impartially, if you had asked, I would have said that Mdaniels5757's close was within a reasonable range of discretion, but that a different editor might have chosen 'no consensus' instead, so I wouldn't have given you much hope of "winning", but I believe that it can be appropriate to have those discussions even when the outcome doesn't change.

But that's when things are going "normally", which is a set of circumstances that does not attain during an ArbCom case. Consequently, if you had happened to ask for advice, I probably would have recommended that you strategically wait a couple of days, until this case was closed. As it stands, there is still time for the arbs to add another proposal, and they may want to consider one about editors who won't respect the outcome of an RFC unless the outcome is favorable to their side. You mention the Simvastatin RFC. I notice that when Colin "lost" that RFC, he didn't say another word, and that when you "lost" the Ethosuximide RFC, you promptly rejected the closure. Perhaps the two cases aren't comparable, but the difference in editors' behavior is on my mind right now.

User:Bradv (and/or anyone else who knows the typical approach): Just looking ahead to when this case is closed, if we encounter an editor who refuses to accept the outcome of an RFC that's conducted under discretionary sanctions, would that normally be something that we should take to WP:AE, to WP:ARCA, or some other DRN process? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Levivich

Disruption is not a force of nature like a hurricane, it's the effect of choices made by individual editors. There are thousands of editors editing medical articles; yet this entire dispute really involves maybe 10 or 20 editors total, and it's only a handful whose editing has been problematic enough to even mention in the PD.

For all the reasons Brad and others have pointed out, Remedy 1a is better than 1, but we don't need a moratorium or any new system for resolving disputes in this area at all. We already have a system, set forth in ONUS policy and the BRD guideline. The problem isn't that this current system doesn't work; the problem is the current system was never enforced. The prices were added in the first place as bold edits; they were reverted; and then they were reinstated without consensus. And not reinstated by many editors, but just by a few. 99% of editors have no problem following ONUS and BRD, but we have 1% of editors, in all our DS areas, who just don't think they have to follow those rules.

There is no reason to "punish" the rest of us thousands of editors by subjecting all of us to a new rule that is designed to limit disruption caused by only a handful of editors (or even fewer). We can solve disruption by removing the disruptive editors. The rest can be handled by the community with existing processes.

Here's an idea: instead of a moratorium or other new editing restriction that applies to everyone, just make the new restriction apply only to those editors whose conduct has been more problematic than to just deserve a reminder or admonishment, but not problematic enough to deserve a TBAN. And if your response to that suggestion is that there are no editors who fall into that category... well, that's my point exactly.

Comments by EdChem

Proposed remedy 2

• Please, please, please do not pass proposed remedy 2 in its present form as it is hugely overbroad. I realise that it is mostly getting second choice votes to remedies 1 / 1a, and that they are still under review, but if passed it will extend DS to a vast chunk of the encyclopaedia.
• Bradv stated that, as drafted, it applied to "pages related to the topic of drug pricing" and boldly changed it to pharmaceutical drugs" and would prefer "to activate DS for all articles related to pharmaceutical drugs (or even medicine), broadly construed." The change to clarify that drugs meant pharmaceuticals rather than illicit drugs is sensible, but the breadth of the change (especially when broadly construed) is huge.
• I have made many edits to pages about pharmaceutical drugs, mostly to improve coverage of chemistry (biosynthesis, industrial manufacture, chemical properties, etc.) As far as I am aware, none of these were controversial and yet all would be brought in to a DS regime without it being clear why DS are needed for such edits.
• Consider aspirin, a pharmaceutical whose article includes pricing information in the lede. Clearly it would be covered. Paraphrasing the synthesis of aspirin section:

Formation of aspirin occurs by the esterification of salicylic acid with acetic anhydride. Salicylic acid's hydroxyl group condenses with the anhydride functional group, yielding aspirin and acetic acid as a byproduct (leading to a vinegar-like smell). Sulfuric acid (or occasionally phosphoric acid) catalyses the process, which can also be done with an alcohol and a carboxylic acid. This process is a common experience in chemical synthesis in undergraduate science education. Pharmaceuticals with high concentrations of aspirin may smell of vinegar due to decomposition via hydrolysis in moist conditions, which yields salicylic and acetic acids.

This content adds potentially 19 more articles, linked from the aspirin page, as topics which are related to pharmaceuticals, broadly construed. The next section of the article, on physical properties, links to 11 more articles.

• The introductory part of Aspirin#Chemical Properties (prior to the synthesis) has another 13 links (one red) not counting those mentioned above. In other words, these two sections contain links to 43 articles, all of which are arguably related to pharmaceutical drugs, broadly construed, but most of which are utterly unrelated to pricing of pharmaceuticals. Salicylic acid (as the active form of aspirin in situ) has potential to relate to the actual areas of dispute, as could the other (cheap) chemicals involved (acetic anhydride, the catalyst, etc).
• The section could be expanded to look at the undergraduate teaching of the synthesis, which allows students to use purification techniques (notably recrystallisation), to check on the purity of the product with IR spectroscopy or melting point determination, to practice stoichiometry and report on yield, all covered in the chemistry education literature. The experiment can also be explored in a lecture setting as an entry point to quality control in industrial manufacture of pharmaceuticals.
• I know that "broadly construed" is meant to be read reasonably, but I don't see why you would want to cast a DS net over so much chemistry that is unrelated to the dispute on pricing information in pharmaceutical drugs... is there any evidence that it has spread in any of these directions?
• If I consider a drug like thalidomide, "broadly construed" covers chemistry like racemic mixture, racemization, chirality, chiral compound, and enantiomers, it covers biology content like teratogen, androgen receptor, cytotoxin, and angiogenesis, BLPs like Lorraine Mercer, Thomas Quasthoff, Niko von Glasow, Mercédes Benegbi, and Mat Fraser, legal topics like the Kefauver Harris Amendment in the U.S., Directive 65/65/EEC1 in the E.U., and the UK Medicines Act 1968, and even musical theatre (Thalidomide!! A Musical).
• Natural products that are used as pharmaceuticals, like doxorubicin, bring in entire articles on biosynthesis (in this case, biosynthesis of doxorubicin, a 27 kB article with precisely nothing to do with drug pricing) and yet more chemical and biochemical content (broadly construed). Medications derived from natural products (such as liraglutide) lead to a similar consequence, in that case bringing not only peptides, peptide bonds, and the like, but all of the medical / biological / biochemical / chemical aspects of proteins, their synthesis and properties. Everything in template:Routes of administration, dosage forms is related to pharmaceuticals, broadly construed, as are articles like antidepressants and suicide risk, the Eagle effect, and Ringer's solution. Pharmaceuticals brings in regulation, legislation, court cases, articles on pharmaceutical research, societal issues (vaccine hesitancy and the anti-vaxx movement, plus their documentaries / misinformation / political action). Parts of Donald Trump articles that connect with hydroxychloroquine and his statements / beliefs are part of pharmaceuticals, broadly construed, but not remotely about medication pricing.
• Ok, I've written too much, but I don't understand why a DS regime with such a broad scope is being considered in response to a relatively narrow area of conflict. Maxim, I note your comment elsewhere on this page about the difficulties with a narrower scope (like pharmaceutical drug pricing), but I don't understand the problem... would you please elaborate?
• Bradv, Maxim, David Fuchs, Beeblebrox, KrakatoaKatie, and Worm That Turned, you have all voted in favour of the DS scheme. I asked that you consider a narrower scope. EdChem (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  EdChem, the issue with just authorizing it for "articles related to drug pricing" or "content relating to drug pricing" is that as soon as the pricing information is removed from the page, the page is no longer eligible for DS. We need something that covers both the addition and removal of pricing information, which is why the scope is for pages about pharmaceutical drugs.

  The fact that DS is authorized for a certain topic area does not mean it will be used. DS just delegates authority to administrators to apply sanctions if required. So if an edit war breaks out somewhere, or a page becomes particularly contentious for some reason, an uninvolved administrator could enforce a 1-revert-restriction to deal with it, or could ban disruptive editors from certain pages or topics. ArbCom authorizing DS doesn't impose any restrictions at all - it still requires an administrator to apply them according to their discretion. Does that address your concerns? – bradv🍁 02:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for replying, Bradv. No, it does not address my concern at all. ArbCom should not be adding DS coverage to a massive group of articles that are mostly or entirely unrelated to the reason for imposing the DS. However, I do see the problem that you highlight and agree that it needs to be addressed. I will give some thought to what alternative wording might work. In the meantime, can you tell me if the pricing dispute has spilled outside of pages about individual pharmaceutical drugs within article space? I know that there has been debate on article talk pages and WP pages, but I wonder if the dispute would appear elsewhere in article space if the individual article pages were handled. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  Bradv, I was thinking about DS on articles where the primary topic was pharmaceutical drugs and their talk pages (allowing pages to be tagged and edit notices) but limited to content dealing with pricing (removal, addition, modification, etc). Your version is a major improvement over the one I was concerned about above – thank you – but I thought I'd share where my thoughts had led.{pb}I note that neither your version nor mine address the problems that occurred around iPhones, but then I suppose another situation like that could be handled in an ARCA if it was a proxy for the issues in this case. EdChem (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Nosebagbear

Firstly, my thanks to any Arbitrator reading every post on the Talk Page, and a request to those who can't to be even more careful in their votes.

The General RfC Issue vs Remedy 1

Obviously heavily covered already, including very well by Barkeep49. I would specifically note three things:

1) There is more than one way for ArbCom to make a content decision - it isn't setting a decision either way here (which would be a massive breach), but the current phrasing is in effect partially resetting the decision, which gives those who disagreed a second bite at the apple

2) While editors in the local discussions could be considered to need to follow the general RfC, the scale is so large that a significant number are going to come down to who has the perseverance and who shows up. If local decisions violating the general RfC come through, and are found later, are they automatically subject to "relitigation"?

3) I actually like the novel style of this remedy, and think it can be fixed. If note to the need to follow consensus found in the general RfC (possibly with enforcement mechanism), but that the moratoriums could still run, and there are aspects not covered in the RfC, and those are subject to discussion, that could be a big plus. It just can't pass as is.

Discretionary Sanctions

The scale here started unacceptably broad and has massively escalated to cover all pharmaceutrical drugs. I can't see why it had to go that broad in either. What we are experiencing here is a form of ARBWEATHER. I know it's currently a bunch of 2nd-choice !votes, but if this covers whole pages that's unacceptably broad. DS is, at best, a necessary evil, and must, MUST, be minimised.

One backup possibility is to have it apply either strictly to the relevant text, or to the sections containing it (and a prohibition against unneeded expansion to other sections). This brings obvious enforcement issues, of course, but is a lesser evil than blanketing such a swathe. Getting DS off pages is difficult, and AE is reticent to overturn Admin decisions except where clearly warranted.

With thanks, and please ping any response. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by bluerasberry

I am uncertain how much time I have to respond to the proposed decision or the comments. What kind of response is useful here? This is a lot to consider with no apparent schedule or goal that I recognize. I am trying to figure out what is happening. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I realize that Wikipedia lacks a process for identifying misconduct

In my view, this was a case about misconduct. Many people viewed this as a case on medical pricing, but to me, this all seemed like the same context of tolerating an uncivil environment. Somehow I feel like the Wikipedia mediation process is blind to incivility, because I feel like many negative comments in the evidence here got no particular response. I do not fault ArbCom or administrators for failing to respond to incivility, because I think both of those higher authorities are dependent on lower level moderation to present Wikipedia community standards for identifying misconduct. I fault myself for not immediately calling out instances of negativity when I see them. There never is a reason to tolerate public misconduct which spoils the enjoyment of a community space or for anyone to assert a right to express themselves by exposing the community to their negative way of communicating.

WikiProject Code of Conduct

As a response to this case I am proposing

• User:Bluerasberry/WikiProject code of conduct

I want less tolerance for negativity in more of Wikipedia, starting with WikiProjects. Anyone who wishes should come to WikiProject Medicine and discuss code of conduct there.

The Wikimedia Foundation is pushing their code of conduct.

• https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52779899
• meta:Universal Code of Conduct
• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#WMF_Board_Authorises_Universal_Code_of_Conduct_and_non-local_sanctions_of_those_who_breach_them

The worst part about facing misconduct is that I know the people who attack me also practice misconduct routinely as their everyday habit. No one develops a practice of continuous hostility in only one social setting. For everyone's sake we should not allow hostility to pass in a single instance without comment and correction. Whatever else happens on Wikipedia, conversation should be civil.

Doc James

Doc James is a civil editor and in this case for reasons other than making personal attacks. Some opposing parties here either engaged in personal attacks or condoned those personal attacks. There is a problem in the mediation process for imagining that all conflicts are the same, and that personal hostility is comparable to friction from someone's civil editing habits. If there were enforcement of a code of conduct then the circumstances of conflict with Doc James would not have occurred, and instead the conversation would have started with peaceful discussion instead of personal attacks leading to this ArbCom case.

QuackGuru

A user posted then removed the following post. The original poster seem to not want responsibility for their statement, but I am comfortable re-posting it myself.

I have evaluated QuackGuru's posts many times. My criteria for judging users is checking their kindness and willingness to have concise conversation leading to compromise. I acknowledge that QuackGuru is conflict prone, but I have no objection to conflict which remains kind and avoids personal attacks. QuackGuru is not a user who creates conflict, but is a user who somehow has high tolerance for participating in controversial topics on Wikipedia where conflict tends to occur in any case. The proposed remedy for this case is that QuackGuru be topic banned from medicine in general. I agree that this proposed remedy for QuackGuru does not match the evidence presented, which is about other particular cases. I present QuackGuru here as one kind of challenge in Wikipedia, which is conflict from editing habits while practicing civility. To me, that is a different sort of problem than conflict from personal attacks and hostility. Sometimes I feel like easy to identify behavior, like editing habits, gets unduly harsh judgement for being measurable. In contrast, rudeness and incivility bypasses scrutiny because it is more challenging to measure and harder to count. Open hostility is a much more serious problem than what QuackGuru does.

---

I am concerned over the scope of the QuackGuru remedy. The behavioral evidence presented in the proposed finding of fact covered:

• Electronic Cigarettes In 2015
• Judeo-Christian related articles in 2017
• Drug Pricing in 2020

A topic ban from articles relating to medicine broadly construed should be based upon evidence of disruption to articles relating to medicine broadly construed. It certainly should not be based upon evidence about two unrelated topics, both of which were previously addressed with a topic ban and a block.

I can see three ways to go with this evidence-remedy mismatch.

• Reduce the scope of the remedy to "prohibited from making any edits relating to pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing in the article namespace" -- the actual 2008 disruption this case is about.
• Increase the scope of the remedy to encompass all of the different forms of disruption that the evidence covers. I do not have wording for such a topic ban -- it should be discussed.
• Keep the remedy as it is and change the finding of fact so that it shows evidence supporting the remedy.

---

Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion by Pbsouthwood

If a claim regardeng drug pricing is deleted on the grounds that it is undue or inaccurate or misleading, it may not be reinstated until there is consensus that the proposed version is due, relevant, accurate, current and clear, or why it should be an exception to these requirements. Including pricing information is relevant when it can shown why it is relevant and the onus is on the person adding it to show why it is relevant by logical reasoning and evidence relevant to the specific case. No mere agreement with any specific argument makes it more valid. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Eschoryii

Is somebody going to edit the articles where medicine pricing is not allowed? And is the battle going to continue with each edited article? Eschoryii (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)